BETWEEN: GIANNI VERSACE SPA
FIRST APPLICANT
SANTO VERSACE
SECOND APPLICANT
DONATELLA VERSACE
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: FRANK MONTE aka FRANCOIS FERDINAND MONTENERI
FIRST RESPONDENT
ARKITUDE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 096 646 016)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE: 15 OCTOBER 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

1 Four days have been set aside for the hearing of this matter, commencing on 29 October 2001. I have already given directions and expressed my conclusion. I now give my reasons.

2 When this matter came on for directions this morning, Mr Evatt announced that he had recently come into the matter and that he now appeared for the respondents. He informed me that the respondents wished to seek further orders in relation to the hearing of the matter and that this would call for the vacation of at least some of the hearing dates fixed.

3 The matter was fixed for hearing some months ago by consent and a number of directions hearings have been conducted in the course of which, for the most part, orders were made by consent. In respect of a number of these orders there has not been compliance on the part of the respondents and this was acknowledged.

4 It has previously been agreed between the parties that the matter should proceed on the basis that the issues of liability and damage will be considered separately. The matter fixed for hearing on 29 October involves the determination of liability questions.

5 Mr Evatt informed me that the respondents wished to seek orders in relation to the hearing and amendments to the defence as well as to make a cross-claim and join additional parties. He also requested particulars, discovery and the administration of interrogatories, none of which had previously been sought. No evidence had been filed in support of these applications.

6 Mr Cobden appeared for the applicants and made submissions in opposition to a number of the orders sought. He pointed out that he was not given any prior notice of the applications which are presently before me.

7 There are only nine working days between these applications and the date fixed for the hearing and, in this respect at least, the circumstances in which this application is made differ substantially to those before the High Court in the case referred to by the respondents: Queensland v J…

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.

Continue reading Versace v Monte

Details

AGLC: Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1454
Case: [2001] FCA 1454
Decision Date: 15 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Versace v Monte was heard by the Federal Court of Australia in the New South Wales District Registry. The case involves a dispute between Gianni Versace S.p.A., Santo Versace, and Donatella Versace, who are the applicants, and Frank Monte (also known as Francois Ferdinand Monteneri) and Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited, who are the respondents. The applicants are seeking relief in relation to alleged defamation and trade practices issues. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether a separate hearing should be held to determine whether the respondents were engaged in the course of carrying on a business of providing information, exempt under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

The court considered whether the question of whether the respondents were exempt as information providers should be segregated from the main hearing. The court found that it was not appropriate to isolate this issue as it would not necessarily conclude the matter or shorten the hearing time. Additionally, the court rejected the respondents' submission that the matter should be heard by a jury due to the claim in defamation, as no foundation had been laid for this suggestion. The court also declined to grant leave to amend the defence extensively, administer interrogatories, or join additional parties at such a late stage in the proceedings. The court did, however, permit the taking of evidence by video link, except for one witness, due to the convenience and cost-saving benefits of this procedure.

The court confirmed that the hearing of the matter would proceed as scheduled and reserved the question of costs. The court's decision was based on the principles of fairness, efficiency, and the need to avoid fragmenting the case through the segregation of issues.

Orders