Zoo Sport (Europe) Ltd v Zoo International Pte Ltd

The Federal Court was asked to consider an application for the dismissal of proceedings brought by Zoo Sport (Europe) Ltd against Zoo International Pte Ltd. The dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, as well as a claim for breach of contract. The applicants sought to have the proceedings dismissed due to the respondents' failure to prosecute the case adequately. The respondents had been in default for not complying with an order for security for costs and for not filing a notice of address for service. The court was required to determine whether the proceedings should be dismissed under the rules governing the dismissal for want of prosecution.

The court considered whether the respondents' conduct warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. The primary focus was on whether the respondents' failure to comply with the order for security for costs and to file a notice of address for service amounted to a clear and persistent failure to prosecute the case. The court noted that the respondents had not taken any steps to address these defaults despite multiple opportunities. The applicants argued that the respondents' conduct demonstrated a lack of intention to pursue the proceedings, justifying the dismissal of the case. The court agreed with the applicants' submissions, finding that the respondents had not complied with the court's orders and had not shown any intention to prosecute the case.

Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings and set aside the previous orders made on 27 July 2018. The applicants were ordered to file and serve any further submissions and affidavit material concerning costs by a specified deadline. The court determined that the question of costs and the disposal of the money paid into court by the applicants would be decided based on the submitted papers. The dismissal order was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.