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

[1992] FCA 295

L

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