Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd - [2023] FCA 1265

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265

File number(s): QUD 215 of 2020

Judgment of: DOWNES J

Date of order: 19 October 2023

Date of publication of reasons: 23 October 2023

Catchwords:
CONTRACT – restraint of trade – confidentiality clause – admissions made of breaches of contract during hearing of trial in relation to competing business – certain relief granted at conclusion of trial

CONSUMER LAW – admitted breaches of Australian Consumer Law – injunctions and corrective advertising ordered before final judgment in interests of consumers

COPYRIGHT – admitted breaches of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – certain relief granted with question of additional damages reserved to final judgment

Division: General Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of hearing: 9–10, 12 and 19 October 2023

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D Logan KC with Mr J Mitchenson

Solicitor for the Applicants: Dundas Lawyers

Counsel for the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents: Mr B Hall

Solicitor for the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents: Stokes Lawyers

Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: The Fifth Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

QUD 215 of 2020

BETWEEN:
NATIVE EXTRACTS PTY LTD ACN 161 185 913

First Applicant

MATERBELLATOR PTY LTD ACN 600 036 342 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NATIVE EXTRACTS HOLDING TRUST ABN 68 491 475 676

Second Applicant

EVOLVESK.IN PTY LTD ACN 604 152 061

Third Applicant

AND:
PLANT EXTRACTS PTY LTD ACN 613 551 349

First Respondent

ROSS MACDOUGALD

Second Respondent

PHYTOVERSE PTY LTD ACN 603 360 112 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

DOWNES J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 OCTOBER 2023

RULE 41.06 ENDORSEMENT
IF YOU, PLANT EXTRACTS PTY LTD, ROSS MACDOUGALD, PHYTOVERSE PTY LTD AND BIOLOGI PTY LTD:
(A)REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER; OR
(B)DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU NOT TO DO,

YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT.
IN THIS ORDER THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS APPLY:
SFASOCmeans the Applicants’ Second Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6 October 2023.
Deed of Settlement means the Deed of Settlement defined in paragraph 11 of the SFASOC.
Restraintmeans the term in the Deed of Settlement pleaded in paragraph 14 of the SFASOC.
Confidential Information means the information in:
(a)the First Applicant’s Extract Log / Formula Book, a copy of which is Annexure LGC-007 to the affidavit of Lisa Carroll affirmed on 23 June 2022;
(b)the First Applicant’s Grower’s Matrix, being the spreadsheet a copy of which is Annexure LGC-029 to the affidavit of Lisa Carroll affirmed 23 June 2022 and the document at Exhibit 1, Volume 2, Tab 66;
(c)the First Applicant’s List of Suppliers and Customers, a copy of which is Annexure LGC-024 to the affidavit of Lisa Carroll affirmed on 23 June 2022.

Contractual Duty of…

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 Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd 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: [2023] FCA 1265
Decision Date: 19 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Native Extracts Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought proceedings against Plant Extracts Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged breaches of contract, including a restraint of trade and confidentiality clause, and breaches of the Australian Consumer Law and the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The defendant admitted to breaches of contract and the Australian Consumer Law during the hearing of the trial, and admitted to breaches of copyright at the conclusion of the trial. The court was required to determine whether certain relief should be granted at that time, and whether other relief should be reserved for final judgment.

The court found that certain relief could be granted immediately in the interests of consumers and to protect the plaintiff’s intellectual property. Injunctions were granted to prevent the defendant from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and corrective advertising was ordered. The question of additional damages under the Australian Consumer Law was reserved for final judgment. The court also found that the restraint of trade and confidentiality clause were reasonable and enforceable to a limited extent, and granted certain relief in relation to copyright infringement with the question of additional damages reserved for final judgment.

The court granted injunctive relief to the plaintiff, preventing the defendant from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and requiring corrective advertising to be undertaken. The court also granted certain relief in relation to copyright infringement, with the question of additional damages reserved for final judgment. The court found that the restraint of trade and confidentiality clause were reasonable and enforceable to a limited extent, and granted relief accordingly.

The final orders of the court included injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and certain relief in relation to copyright infringement, with the question of additional damages reserved for final judgment. The court also found that the restraint of trade and confidentiality clause were reasonable and enforceable to a limited extent, and granted relief accordingly. The defendant was required to take certain steps to comply with the orders, and the plaintiff was entitled to seek additional damages at final judgment.

Orders