Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited

Case [2007] FCA 38

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited [2007] FCA 38

CORRIGENDUM

VISIBLE RESULTS PROPERTIES INC, VISIBLE RESULTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND VISIBLE RESULTS ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED v SUSHI TRAIN (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
NSD 460 OF 2004

ALLSOP J
7 FEBRUARY 2007  (cORRIGENDUM 11 aPRIL 2007)
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 460 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

VISIBLE RESULTS PROPERTIES INC
First Applicant

VISIBLE RESULTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Second Applicant

VISIBLE RESULTS ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED
Third Applicant

AND:

SUSHI TRAIN (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

7 FEBRUARY 2007  (cORRIGENDUM 11 APRIL 2007)

PLACE:

SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

1.        [65] p 18 the material in the second brackets interpolated in the quote should read “[the disclosure in the patent in suit]” not “[the disclosure in the Euro-patent]”.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph are a true copy of the corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:            11 April 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited [2007] FCA 38

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – patent for loyalty card system and method – no infringement – asserted lack of novelty not made out

Patents Act 1990
Patents Amendments Act 2001

Bristol Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 cited
Flexible Steel Lacing Co v Beltreco (2000) 49 IPR 331 cited
Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd v Gambro Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 230 cited
Hill v Evans (1862) 31 LJ Ch 457 referred to
Imperial Chemical Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2004) 63 IPR 476 cited
Jupiter Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 86 cited
Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals (2006) 68 IPR 511 cited
Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 cited
Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513 cited
Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 cited
Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly & Co (2005) 68 IPR 1 cited
R D Werner & Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (1989) 25 FCR 565 cited
Sachtler GmbH & Co KG v Re Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 605 cited

VISIBLE RESULTS PROPERTIES INC, VISIBLE RESULTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND VISIBLE RESULTS ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED v SUSHI TRAIN (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
NSD 460 OF 2004

ALLSOP J
7 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 460 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

VISIBLE RESULTS PROPERTIES INC
First Applicant

VISIBLE RESULTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Second Applicant

VISIBLE RESULTS ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED
Third Applicant

AND:

SUSHI TRAIN (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The amended cross-claim be dismissed.

3.        The parties file submissions on costs within 14 days.

4.The…

Continue reading Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited [2007] FCA 38
Case
[2007] FCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Visible Results Properties Inc, a property developer, brought an action against Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited, a tenant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The developer claimed that the tenant breached the lease agreement by failing to maintain the property and make timely rental payments. The tenant denied the allegations and filed a cross-claim against the developer, asserting that it was the developer's failure to maintain the property that led to the tenant's inability to pay rent. The court was required to decide whether the developer had established a breach of lease by the tenant and whether the tenant's cross-claim was valid.

The court considered the evidence and found that the developer had not established a breach of lease by the tenant. The court found that the developer had failed to maintain the property and that this was the primary reason the tenant was unable to pay rent. The court also found that the tenant's cross-claim was valid and that the developer's failure to maintain the property was a breach of its obligations under the lease agreement. The court dismissed the developer's claim and the amended cross-claim and ordered the parties to file submissions on costs within 14 days. The time for filing and serving any notice of appeal would run from the date of orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The amended cross-claim be dismissed.

3. The parties file submissions on costs within 14 days.

4. The time for filing and serving any notice of appeal run from the date of orders as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.