Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos & Anor [2001] FCA 162

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828) v

GEORGE KAROUNOS AND ANOTHER

NG 732 of 1998

HILL J
21 FEBRUARY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828)
APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

GEORGE KAROUNOS
SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

REVELINU PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 545 117)
[in voluntary administration] (previously known as
RFC Nominees Pty Limited)
FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Mr Karounos pay the costs thrown away today.  Those costs may be taxed and paid as the case may be without awaiting the ultimate outcome of the case.

2.Mr Karounos pay into court, as surety for the costs of the applicant thrown away today, the sum of $8,000 within 8 days.

3.The proceedings be adjourned until 8 March 2001.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828)
APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

GEORGE KAROUNOS
SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

REVELINU PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 545 117)
[in voluntary administration] (previously known as
RFC Nominees Pty Limited)
FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The history of this matter has been dealt with in various interlocutory judgments, including those which deal with applications made to vacate dates on which the proceedings have been set down for hearing.  For what is the second time, the proceedings have commenced to be heard.  The first, an abortive attempt, went so far as to take the evidence in chief of the applicant.  That attempt terminated when it became clear that RFC Nominees had been placed in official management.

2. At the close of the applicant’s evidence (that is, the evidence of Unilever Australia Limited (“Unilever”)) yesterday, and I emphasise that I reminded the parties that that evidence had been lodged a considerable time ago, Mr Karounos sought to submit that the applicant had no case to answer.  He requested an adjournment until this morning so that he could prepare submissions to answer submissions in writing that had been handed to me by senior counsel for the applicant.  The hearing does not encompass the issues which arise in the cross-claim involving RFC Nominees Pty Limited (now known as Revelinu Pty Limited but herein referred to as “RFC Nominees”) directly, although there are issues which are common, such as the ability of the respondents to register the word “real” as a trademark.

3. This morning, Mr Karounos tendered some written submissions most of which do not deal with the question of whether there is a case for him to answer.  In particular, he applies yet again to have the proceedings…