Tritech Technology Pty Ltd v Gordon

[2000] FCA 75

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tritech Technology Pty Ltd v Gordon [2000] FCA 75

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – injunctions – mandatory injunction – false and misleading conduct – court’s discretion to grant a mandatory interlocutory injunction to correct misleading statement

TRADE PRACTICES – Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 5(1), (3), (4), and (5) – claim for declaration and injunction – whether claim under s 82 or s 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 5, 52, 82 and 87

Casborne v Scarfe (1737)1 Atk 603 referred to
Couzens v Negri [1981] VR 824 referred to
Emanuele v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 188 CLR 114 discussed
Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 772 referred to
G & C Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co, Ltd [1914] AC 25 cited
Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Muftizade [1979] AC 508 referred to
Penn v Lord Baltimore [1750] 1 Ves Sen 444 referred to
Potter v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 479 followed
Reeve v Lisle [1902] AC 461 referred to
Yamaji v Westpac Banking Corporation (1993) 42 FCR 436 referred to

TRITECH TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD and HOLONOMIC INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY INC v ADRIAN GORDON and APRICON PTY LTD

V 18 of 2000

JUDGE:        FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:          8 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:        MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 18 of 2000

BETWEEN:	TRITECH TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD and HOLONOMIC INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY INC Applicants
AND:	ADRIAN GORDON and APRICON PTY LTD Respondents
JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

UPON the first and second applicants by their counsel undertaking:

(a)to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation to be assessed by the court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order or undertaking or any continuation (with or without variation) thereof; and

(b)to pay compensation referred to in (a) to the person referred to.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   Until the hearing and determination of the proceeding herein, or further order, the Respondents be and are hereby restrained, whether personally or by their servants or agents, or otherwise, from advising or informing, whether orally or in writing, or otherwise Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Group Ships Co or Shanghai Star Rubber Co Ltd that certification of the self-righting inflatable life rafts under their contract with Tritech Technology Pty Ltd or production of them for sale outside the United States constitutes or may constitute an infringement of the rights of the owner of US patent number 5,967,869.

2.   Provided the Applicants pay into Court to the credit of this action the sum of $110,000 or provide a guarantee in respect of that amount from an Australian trading bank in a form satisfactory to a Registrar of the Court, the Respondents are to send…