FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Polyaire Pty Ltd v Lanthois [2011] FCA 1486
Citation: Polyaire Pty Ltd v Lanthois [2011] FCA 1486 Parties: POLYAIRE PTY LTD v PETER JAMES LANTHOIS and STEPHEN DUNCAN File numbers: SAD 183 of 2010
SAD 184 of 2010Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 22 December 2011 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Applications for particulars — where plaintiff company had brought successful action in the Supreme Court of South Australia against the companies of which the defendants were the liquidators for infringement of registered designs relating to an air-conditioning part — where plaintiff had obtained costs orders in its favour — where plaintiffs elected remedy of an account of profits — where plaintiff had lodged formal proofs of debt or claim with the defendants in relation to its claim for costs and an account of profits — where proofs of debt or claim substantially rejected — where plaintiff appealed the defendants’ decisions pursuant to s 1321(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — where defendants sought particulars of claim — whether the Federal Court Rules 2011 applied to the applications, which were filed before those rules came into force but heard and determined afterwards — whether plaintiff had failed adequately to particularise the methodology it would ask Court to adopt in determining its claim for costs — whether particulars provided by plaintiff in relation to the account of profits claims were pleadings of evidence and not relevant matters of fact
Held: The applications for further particulars in relation to the costs claims were refused; certain particulars provided in relation to the account of profits claims were struck out.
Date of hearing: 27 October 2011 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 31 Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr B Jenner Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Lynch Meyer Counsel for the Defendants: Mr M Hoffman QC Solicitor for the Defendants: Kelly & Co Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 183 of 2010
BETWEEN: POLYAIRE PTY LTD
PlaintiffAND: PETER JAMES LANTHOIS
First DefendantSTEPHEN DUNCAN
Second Defendant
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 DECEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 apply to the hearing and determination of the defendants’ application for particulars.
2.The parties have leave to make submissions as to the appropriate orders in light of these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 184 of 2010
BETWEEN: POLYAIRE PTY LTD
PlaintiffAND: PETER JAMES LANTHOIS
First DefendantSTEPHEN DUNCAN
Second Defendant
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 DECEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 apply to the hearing and determination of the defendants’ application for particulars.
2.The parties have leave to make…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Polyaire Pty Ltd v Lanthois 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1486
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether the Federal Court Rules 2011 applied to the defendants' applications for particulars, which were filed before the rules came into force but heard and determined afterwards. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Polyaire had adequately particularised its claims, particularly regarding the methodology for determining costs and the relevance of certain evidence in its account of profits claims. The court examined the defendants' requests for particulars of the plaintiffs' claims for costs and an account of profits, assessing whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently detailed their methodologies and evidence.
The court ruled that the Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 applied to the hearing and determination of the defendants' applications for particulars. The court found that the applications for further particulars in relation to the costs claims were refused, as the plaintiffs had indicated how they intended to present their case, which might necessitate further particularisation. Regarding the account of profits claims, certain particulars provided were struck out as they were deemed to be pleadings of evidence rather than relevant matters of fact. The court also allowed the parties to make further submissions regarding appropriate orders in light of these reasons.
The final orders were that the Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 would apply to the hearing and determination of the defendants’ application for particulars, and the parties were granted leave to make submissions on the appropriate orders in light of the court's reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 apply to the hearing and determination of the defendants’ application for particulars.
2. The parties have leave to make submissions as to the appropriate orders in light of these reasons.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.