W & M Klein Pty Ltd v Art Plastics Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

W & M Klein Pty Ltd v Art Plastics Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1406

CORRIGENDUM

W & M KLEIN PTY LTD (ACN 006 528 543) v ART PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 009 438 706)
V 767 of 2001

FINN J

4 DECEMBER 2003 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 4 DECEMBER 2003)

CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 767 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

W & M KLEIN PTY LTD (ACN 006 528 543)
APPLICANT

AND:

ART PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 009 438 706)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

CORRIGENDUM

  1. The costs order is vacated.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph
is a true copy of the Corrigendum to
the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour
Justice Finn

Associate:

Dated: 4 December 2003


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

W & M Klein Pty Ltd v Art Plastics Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1406

PATENTS – combination patent – alleged infringement – not all essential integers of applicant’s claim taken

Populin v W B Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 59 FLR 37 cited
Flexible Steel Lacing Co v Beltreco Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 331 applied
Bartlem Pty Ltd v CMMC Pty Ltd (2001) 53 IPR 124 cited
Bartlem Pty Ltd v Cox Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 449 cited
Root Qualities Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 225 cited
Welcome Real Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 51 IPR 327 applied
Décor Corporation v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 applied
News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2003) 200 ALR 157 cited
Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 cited

W & M KLEIN PTY LTD (ACN 006 528 543) v ART PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 009 438 706)
V 767 of 2001

FINN J
4 DECEMBER 2003
CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 767 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

W & M KLEIN PTY LTD (ACN 006 528 543)
APPLICANT

AND:

ART PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 009 438 706)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be dismissed with costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 767 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

W & M KLEIN PTY LTD (ACN 006 528 543)
APPLICANT

AND:

ART PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 009 438 706)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

4 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant, W & M Klein Pty Ltd (“Klein”), is the patentee of an Australian standard patent (No 630615), for which the priority date is 1 August 1989.  The patent, which is for an invention entitled “An Improved Removable Plug Means”, must be taken for present purposes…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read W & M Klein Pty Ltd v Art Plastics Pty Ltd 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
[2003] FCA 1406
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

W & M Klein Pty Ltd sought to enforce a judgment against Art Plastics Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The core issue was whether the defendant company had sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment debt. This required the court to determine the availability of assets held by the company and its related entities.

The court examined the relationship between Art Plastics Pty Ltd and other companies in the group. It assessed whether these entities could be considered as having sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment debt. The court found that the assets of the related entities were not available to satisfy the judgment debt due to the separate legal identities of the companies. This principle of corporate veil piercing was not applicable in this case, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had acted in a way that would allow the court to disregard the separate legal identity of the company.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for enforcement of the judgment. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the application. This decision underscores the importance of establishing the availability of assets within the legal framework governing corporate entities.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The application be dismissed with 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

FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.