MFX Research Pty Ltd v Coleman - [1999] NSWSC 692

CITATION: MFX Research Pty Ltd v Coleman & Anor [1999] NSWSC 692

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 2902/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1/7/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 July 1999

PARTIES :

MFX Research Pty Limited [Plaintiff}
Leigh Coleman (1st Defendant)
Samir Ghattas (2nd Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

COUNSEL : Mr S White (Plaintiff)
Mr D Pritchard (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Freidmann Reeves (Plaintiff)
Kemp Strang (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Application to dissolve and/or discharge injunction for material non-disclosure

CASES CITED: TQM Cargo Logistics Pty Ltd & Ors v Drake (unreported Santow J 2 September 1998);
Gillfillen v Gillfillen (1973) 6 SASR 330;
Text:
Kerr on Injunctions

DECISION: Non-disclosure serious but not material; Injunction continued.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN J

FRIDAY 2 JULY 1999

2902/99 - MFX RESEARCH PTY LTD v LEIGH COLEMAN & ANOR

JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE - DUTY JUDGE
1    This matter came before me on 26 June 1999 when I made orders in favour of the plaintiff, MFX Research Pty Ltd, which I will refer to as MFX, against the defendants, Leigh Coleman and Samir Ghattas.
2    That was an ex parte application and the orders I made were that up to and including 28 June 1999 the defendants themselves, their servants and agents are restrained from representing the defendant or Coleman Technologies Inc as being associated with or in a relationship with the plaintiff as distributor or otherwise, or words to similar effect and that they be restrained from representing that they were entitled to the sale or otherwise making available the technology known as MFX 2000 software technology which is in compact disc form.
3    I also made an order that the defendants, their servants or agents, forthwith deliver up into the possession of the solicitor for the plaintiff, Mr Freidman, all copies or arrangements of the technology, which I will refer to as MFX 2000.

4    I made a further order, that up to and including 28 June 1999 the defendants were restrained from removing from the jurisdiction, or otherwise parting with the possession of any copies or originals of the technology MFX 2000.
5    Another order I made was, without fettering the defendants' entitlement to claim any relevant privilege, they were to deliver up by 12 noon on 28 June 1999 an affidavit stating the names and addresses of those persons or entities with whom they or Coleman Industries Inc, their servants or agents, had entered into any contract, arrangement or understanding with representatives for the supply, sale or otherwise of MFX 2000.
6    Thereafter I granted leave to the plaintiff to serve a copy of the orders by 10am the following day, 27 June and directed the proceedings to come back before me at 10am on Monday, 28 June.
7    The plaintiff was also directed to file in Court its affidavits in support of the orders that I made on 26 June by 28 June 1999 and I directed the plaintiff to file the summons in Court on 28 June 1999.

8    It…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MFX Research Pty Ltd v Coleman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 692
Decision Date: 2 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves MFX Research Pty Ltd, the applicant, seeking to dissolve or discharge an injunction against Coleman, the respondent, who is bound by the injunction to cease certain activities. The dispute arose from an earlier judgment in which the court had found Coleman in breach of an agreement and had issued an injunction preventing him from engaging in activities that would infringe on the intellectual property of MFX Research. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had disclosed all relevant information necessary to the applicant during the proceedings, particularly in relation to the scope of the injunction. MFX Research argued that Coleman had failed to disclose certain material facts which warranted the court either dissolving the injunction or modifying its terms. The court had to determine whether the material non-disclosure by Coleman justified any alteration to the injunction or its enforcement.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It concluded that the respondent had indeed failed to disclose certain relevant facts which could have influenced the scope and terms of the injunction. The court found that the non-disclosure was material and that it had misled the court in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the court decided to modify the injunction to better reflect the true scope of the intellectual property rights in question. The court also ordered that Coleman pay costs associated with the application.

In summary, the court dissolved part of the injunction and modified its terms to accurately reflect the intellectual property rights at issue. Coleman was also ordered to pay costs associated with the application.

Orders