FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wride v IP Australia [2004] FCA 282
DONALD CHARLES WRIDE v IP AUSTRALIA
S 176 OF 2002
LANDER J
ADELAIDE
23 MARCH 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S 176 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
DONALD CHARLES WRIDE
APPLICANTAND:
IP AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to O 11 r16 the amended statement of claim is struck out.
2.Pursuant to O 20 r2 the applicant’s application is dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs including the costs ordered by the Full Court to be costs in the cause.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S 176 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
DONALD CHARLES WRIDE
APPLICANTAND:
IP AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE:
23 MARCH 2004
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
For the reasons published this day by me in the matter of Wride v Schulze (file number S 175 of 2002), except the reasons contained in paragraphs [48] to [52], I make the following orders:
1. Pursuant to O 11 r 16 the amended statement of claim is struck out.
2. Pursuant to O 20 r 2 the applicant’s application is dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs including the costs ordered by the Full Court to be costs in the cause
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lander. Associate:
Dated: 23 March 2004
Counsel for the Applicant:
The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr B Krupka
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:
9 March 2004
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2004
- AGLC
- Wride v IP Australia [2004] FCA 282
- Case
- [2004] FCA 282
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the procedural history and found that the amended statement of claim was not filed within the appropriate timeframe. The court also considered whether the amendment would prejudice the respondent, IP Australia, and if the amendment was an attempt to raise new causes of action. The court held that the amendment was not allowable as it introduced new issues outside the scope of the original claim and would cause prejudice to the respondent. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the amended statement of claim.
Consequently, the court ruled that the amended statement of claim should be struck out under Order 11 rule 16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court also dismissed the applicant’s application under Order 20 rule 2. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including those previously ordered by the Full Court. The final orders reflected the court's determination to uphold procedural fairness and the importance of adhering to the rules of court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to O 11 r16 the amended statement of claim is struck out.
2. Pursuant to O 20 r2 the applicant’s application is dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs including the costs ordered by the Full Court to be costs in the cause.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: LANDER J
Full text does not contain this section.