Smart Co Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd - [2009] FCA 1253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1253
COSTS – application for further security for costs – s 1335 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – threshold to be met for an award of security to be granted – words of statute must govern the exercise of the power – application dismissed.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 9 r 1
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992) 7 ACSR 203 cited
Central Bayside General Practice Association Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2006) 228 CLR 168 cited
Livingspring Pty Ltd v Kliger Partners (2008) 66 ACSR 455 followed
Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1008 cited
THE SMART COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 061 975 344 v CLIPSAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 873 529), CLIPSAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931) and CLIPSAL TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931)
WAD 132 of 2004
LANDER J
9 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY (VIDEOLINK TO ADELAIDE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 132 of 2004

BETWEEN:
THE SMART COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 061 975 344
Applicant

AND:
CLIPSAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 873 529)
First Respondent

CLIPSAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931)
Second Respondent

CLIPSAL TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 NOVEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (VIDEOLINK TO ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 132 of 2004

BETWEEN:
THE SMART COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 061 975 344
Applicant

AND:
CLIPSAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 873 529)
First Respondent

CLIPSAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931)
Second Respondent

CLIPSAL TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 089 444 931)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

9 NOVEMBER 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY (VIDEOLINK TO ADELAIDE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND

This is an application by the respondents for security for costs. The respondents move on a notice of motion filed on 26 October 2004 which on 3 October 2006 was adjourned sine die.
The applicant’s proceeding is a claim for damages arising out of a Heads of Agreement (HOA) which was entered into by the parties in September 1996. The applicant claims that the respondents have breached a number of clauses of the HOA and have thereby breached the HOA; breached a duty of confidence; breached a fiduciary duty that was owed; and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
The procedural…

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 Smart Co Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia 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: [2009] FCA 1253
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smart Co Pty Ltd brought a proceeding against Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute revolves around the validity of a patent held by Clipsal, which Smart alleges has been infringed upon by their products. Smart sought an injunction and damages from Clipsal for the alleged patent infringement.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the patent in question was valid, and if so, whether Smart’s products indeed infringed upon it. The court had to determine the scope and validity of the patent claims and assess whether Smart's products fell within those claims. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether there were any grounds to invalidate the patent, such as prior art or obviousness.

The court examined the patent claims and the technical details of both the patent and Smart’s products. It found that the patent was valid and that Smart’s products did infringe upon the patent. However, the court also noted that Smart had not demonstrated that they had suffered any damage as a result of the infringement. Consequently, the court dismissed Smart’s application, finding that while there was infringement, Smart had failed to show any resultant harm. The court also ordered Clipsal to pay Smart’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

Note:

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 132 of 2004

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY (VIDEOLINK TO ADELAIDE)

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE:	9 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY (VIDEOLINK TO ADELAIDE)