UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar - [2017] WASC 79

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: UON PTY LTD -v- HOASCAR [2017] WASC 79

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 17 MARCH 2017

DELIVERED : 23 MARCH 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 3178 of 2016

BETWEEN: UON PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
GABRIEL HOASCAR
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to restrain solicitor acting for defendant - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Patents Act 1990 (Cth)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr N D C Dillon
Defendant: Mr D Robinson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: AustAsia Legal Pty Ltd
Defendant: Williams & Hughes

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bowen v Stott [2004] WASC 94
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561

MASTER SANDERSON: On 20 January 2017, the plaintiff in this matter issued an application for summary judgment as to part of its claim. The matter was first returned in chambers on 7 February 2017 when certain programming orders were made. On 13 March 2017, the plaintiff issued a chamber summons seeking to restrain the defendant's solicitors from acting for him. Despite the short notice of the hearing, both parties were anxious I should determine the latter application. In my view, there is no basis upon which the defendant's solicitors should be restrained from acting. These are my reasons for reaching that conclusion.
It is convenient to begin with an outline of the plaintiff's claim as disclosed in the statement of claim. The plaintiff is in the business of supplying electrical equipment including power generators, dewatering systems and the like. It is a specialist in providing equipment to remote mine sites. Between 2002 and 2015, two officers of the plaintiff developed an alternative motor starting control and power management system with specific application for remote island mine sites. In the statement of claim, this equipment is defined as the 'Invention'. On 16 August 2016, a provisional patent was granted for the Invention. The Invention has been incorporated into what is defined in the statement of claim as the 'Pro Power GMC Generator'. This equipment has been marketed to various parties engaged in the mining industry.
Between 1 July 2015 and 9 March 2016, the defendant was employed by the plaintiff. He was employed pursuant to three contracts. Each contract has its own particular terms. However, each contract has non‑disclosure obligations, non‑copying obligations and certain other obligations which are clearly designed to ensure the defendant does not misuse the intellectual property of the plaintiff. These three contracts and their terms are pleaded in detail in the statement of claim. The specific details are not presently of concern.
The plaintiff pleads the defendant left its employment around 9 March 2016 and at a date following 15 March 2016, began working with a company known as Taranis Power Pty Ltd. Taranis appears to be a competitor of the plaintiff, although they operate in slightly different fields. In any event, soon after the defendant joined Taranis, Taranis advertised it could supply a product described as 'VarioGen' which the plaintiff says achieves the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] WASC 79
Decision Date: 23 MARCH 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar, UON, the plaintiff, sought to restrain their former solicitor from acting for the defendant, Hoascar. The case involved a complex dispute over a commercial contract, with UON alleging that the solicitor had acted improperly in representing Hoascar. The court was asked to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to prevent the solicitor from continuing in their role.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were circumstances that would justify restraining the solicitor from acting for the defendant. The court needed to assess whether the solicitor's conduct had breached any ethical or legal standards, and if so, whether this warranted an order to prevent the solicitor from representing Hoascar. The court also had to balance the interests of the parties involved, including the solicitor's professional obligations and the potential impact on the proceedings.

The court determined that the application to restrain the solicitor was dependent on its own facts. While the court acknowledged that there may be situations where such an order is appropriate, it found that the specific circumstances of this case did not warrant such an intervention. The court emphasised that the decision to restrain a solicitor must be carefully considered, as it could have significant implications for the administration of justice and the rights of the parties involved. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, finding that there were no grounds to prevent the solicitor from acting for Hoascar.

The final orders of the court were that UON's application to restrain the solicitor from acting for Hoascar was dismissed. The court did not grant any relief to UON, and the solicitor was permitted to continue representing Hoascar in the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that any application to restrain a solicitor is based on clear and compelling evidence of improper conduct.

Orders