University of Western Australia v Gray (No 29)

Case

[2010] FCA 665

24 June 2010


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

University of Western Australia v Gray (No 29) [2010] FCA 665

Citation: University of Western Australia v Gray (No 29) [2010] FCA 665
Parties: THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA v BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY, SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARAGON MEDICAL PTY LTD) (ACN 078 166 122), CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005);
BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY v THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and YAN CHEN
SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) v BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY and CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED
File number: WAD 292 of 2004
Judge: BARKER J
Date of judgment: 24 June 2010
Catchwords: DAMAGES – final orders as to damages and costs
Cases cited: University of Western Australia v Gray (No 28) [2010] FCA 586
Date of hearing: 10 November 2009
Date of last submissions: 12 November 2009
Place: Perth
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr AJ Meagher SC and Mr GKJ Rich
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Goldsmiths Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr JD Elliot SC and Mr EJC Heerey
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 292 of 2004

BETWEEN:

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND:

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
First Respondent

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARAGON MEDICAL PTY LTD) (ACN 078 166 122)
Second Respondent

CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005)
Third Respondent

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
First Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First Cross-Respondent to First Cross‑Claim

YAN CHEN
Second Cross-Respondent

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED
Second Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
Second Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED
Third Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

JUDGE:

BARKER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JUNE 2010

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first respondent pay the second respondent the sum of $1,762,224.33 as damages in respect of the second respondent’s cross‑claim against the first respondent.

2.The first respondent pay the second respondent the sum of $812,961.50 as interest on the costs incurred by the second respondent including the amount in order 1 of these orders.

3.The first respondent pay the second respondent’s costs of the assessment of damages in respect of the second respondent’s cross‑claim against the first respondent.

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 Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 292 of 2004

BETWEEN:

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND:

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
First Respondent

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARAGON MEDICAL PTY LTD) (ACN 078 166 122)
Second Respondent

CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005)
Third Respondent

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
First Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First Cross-Respondent to First Cross‑Claim

YAN CHEN
Second Cross-Respondent

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED
Second Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

BRUCE NATHANIAL GRAY
Second Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED
Third Cross-Respondent to Second Cross‑Claim

JUDGE:

BARKER J

DATE:

24 JUNE 2010

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In University of Western Australia v Gray (No 28) [2010] FCA 586, handed down by me on 10 June 2010, I assessed the damages payable on Sirtex’s successful cross‑claim against Dr Gray for damages for loss of commercial opportunity. I then invited the parties to bring forward a minute of orders that should be made, taking into account the findings I had made.

  2. On 23 June 2010, the parties provided a minute of orders, which they had agreed.  The orders proposed reflect the findings made by me and finally calculate the damages payable.

  3. So far as the amount of damages in proposed order 1 is concerned, it is calculated as follows:

    ·In [154] of my reasons for decision, I allowed (in principle) item 2 of the damages claimed, as set out in the Further Revised Annexure A dated 10 November 2009, in the sum of $2,121,814.55.

    ·However, the item 2 sum was required to be reduced by $50,715.96 (the amount claimed in item 6) pursuant to my finding in [175].

    ·That reduced sum was then to be increased by the sum of $2,106.57 (being the amount claimed in item 7) pursuant to my finding in [176].

    ·In accordance with my finding, at [190], Sirtex is entitled to 86% of the total sum then arrived at, that is $2,073,205.09 x 86% = $1,762,224.33.

  4. As to the amount of interest in order 2, it is calculated as follows:

    ·6% per annum x $1,762,224.33 for the period from 1 April 2007 to 10 June 2010 = $338,057.39.

    ·6% per annum x $3,000,000 for the period from 1 April 2007 to 18 November 2009, the latter being the date that Sirtex received payment of costs from University of Western Australia in the primary proceeding = $474,904.11.

    ·Total interest payable - $812,961.50.

    FINAL ORDERS

  5. The Court therefore orders that:

    1.The first respondent pay the second respondent the sum of $1,762,224.33 as damages in respect of the second respondent’s cross‑claim against the first respondent.

    2.The first respondent pay the second respondent the sum of $812,961.50 as interest on the costs incurred by the second respondent including the amount in order 1 of these orders.

    3.The first respondent pay the second respondent’s costs of the assessment of damages in respect of the second respondent’s cross‑claim against the first respondent.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker.

Associate:

Dated:       24 June 2010

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0