Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
V-Flow Pty Limited v Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 27 Citation: V-Flow Pty Limited v Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 27
Appeal from: V-Flow Pty Limited v Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited [2013] FCAFC 16; Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited v V-Flow Pty Limited [2011] FCA 1154
Parties: V-FLOW PTY LIMITED, JAMIE ROBERT BROWN, BOZIDAR MATKOVIC and ANTHONY ALOE v HOLYOAKE INDUSTRIES (VIC) PTY LIMITED
File number: VID 460 of 2012
Judges: EMMETT, EDMONDS AND RARES JJ
Date of judgment: 5 March 2013
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 51A, 52
Cases cited: Software AG v Racing and Wagering (WA) (2009) 175 FCR 121
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: 4 March 2013
Place: Sydney (via videolink to Melbourne)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Appellants: N J O'Bryan SC with A R McNab
Solicitor for the Appellants: Russell Kennedy Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: P G Cawthorn SC with A R Kirby
Solicitor for the Respondent: Nicholas O'Donoghue & Co
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 460 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: V-FLOW PTY LIMITED
First Appellant
JAMIE ROBERT BROWN
Second Appellant
BOZIDAR MATKOVIC
Third Appellant
ANTHONY ALOE
Fourth Appellant
AND: HOLYOAKE INDUSTRIES (VIC) PTY LIMITED
Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate