Legal Research
Cases
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd

Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case [1992] FCA 295 20 May 1992

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Discretionary Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) JUDGMENT No. 2% 7.9.2 ...

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) 1 No. G738 of 1991
i
GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN :

S T E R L I N G PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD
Appellant
AND : THE BOOTS COMPANY
[AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX, GUMMOW h FOSTER JJ
PLACE : SYDNEY
DATE : 20 MAY 1992

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
\ No. G738 of 1991
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

S T E R L I N G PHARMACEUTICALS PTY

D =
Appellant
AND : THE BOOTS COMPANY
/AUSTRALIA\ PTY LTD
Respondent

C O W : WILCOX, GUMMOW & FOSTER JJ
PLACE : SYDNEY
DATE : 20 MAY 1992

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMIZNT

THE COURT: Dr Flick has put to the Court everything that can
be said in support of the application for leave to appeal. Nonetheless we are of the opinion that leave ought to be refused. We are unpersuaded that Lockhart J erred in principle in making the directions which he did. In

particular, we reject the submission that authorities relating to a permanent stay of proceedings, such as m v Manildra

Flour Mills Pro~rietarv Limited (1990) 171 CLR 538 and m v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, have any application to a case such as this where his Honour merely fixed a later directions date than he ordinarily would have because of litigation in another jurisdiction, but with liberty to restore the matter to the list on seven days notice.

Dr Flick also contended that his Honour's discretion miscarried. No doubt there was more than one possible way of dealing with the situation which confronted the Court but we do not accept that the course which his Honour resolved to take was not reasonably open to him.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

with costs.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) pages
are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment
of the Court. ,

Associate: p4 % Dated: 20 May 1992

APPEARANCES

Counsel for the Applicant: Dr G Flick and
R de Robilliard
Solicitors for the Applicant: Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Counsel for the Respondent: J Gleeson
Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

Date(s) of hearing: 20 May 1992

Details

AGLC: Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 295
Case: [1992] FCA 295
Decision Date: 20 May 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of Lockhart J in the Federal Court of Australia, challenging a ruling that dismissed their application for an injunction. The primary dispute involved whether the lower court judge had correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the application for leave to appeal. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court's General Division. The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether Lockhart J's decision to dismiss Sterling Pharmaceuticals' application for leave to appeal was correct and whether it demonstrated an error in principle or a miscarriage of discretion. The court also considered whether the cited authorities on permanent stays of proceedings applied to this particular situation.

The Federal Court found that, although the case presented compelling arguments in favor of leave to appeal, Lockhart J's decision was not erroneous in principle. The court rejected the argument that authorities concerning permanent stays of proceedings were relevant since Lockhart J had only fixed a later directions date due to litigation in another jurisdiction, with liberty to restore the matter to the list on seven days' notice. Furthermore, the court held that Lockhart J's discretion was not miscarried as there were multiple reasonable ways to handle the situation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders