Federal Court of Australia
wi
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. SA G.7. of 1979
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL EDGLEY INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD. and BULLEN INTERCONTINENTAL PTY. LIMITED and RINGLING BROS. -— BARNUM
& BATLEY COMBINED SHOWS INC.
Applicants - and - ASHUTON'S NOMINEES PTY. LTD. trading
as ASHTON'S CIRCUS AUSTRALIA'S OLDEST CIRCUS (Reg)
Respondent
CORAM: Fisher J.
12 September 1979
Reasons for Interim Order made 30 August 1979
In this matter Michael Edgley International Pty. Ltd, Bullen Intercontinental Pty. Limited and Ringling Bros - Barnum & Batley Combined Shows Inc., ("the applicants") commenced proceedings against Ashton's Nominees Pty. Ltd, trading as "Ashton's Carcus — Australia's' Oldest Circus", ("the respondent") on 22 August 1979 claiming a declaration that the respondent had contravened ss.52, 53(c) and 53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, an injunction restraining the respondent from infringing those sections in the advertising of any circus presented by
at, and damages. The application was endorsed with a claim for
interlocutory relief, the hearing date for which was given as
4 September 1979.
Upon being served with the proceedings the respondent failed a notice of motion seeking a stay or dismissal of the Claim for anterlocutory relief on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. However, when this notice of motion came on for preliminary hearing on Monday 27 August 1979, the respondent indicated that 1t primarily desired an earlier hearing of the applicants! interlocutory application as the advertising of its circus which was currently performing in Adelaide was being prejudiced by knowledge of this application for a restraining order. The parties agreed that the hearing of the applicants' interlocutory application be brought forward to Wednesday 29 August 1979. Counsel for the applicants gave notice at this stage of his intention to amend the endorsement claiming the interlocutory relief by widening the restraining order sought. Ultimately no formal amendment was made as the parties agreed that the court was not constrained by the terms of the endorsement from making such order, 1f any, as was
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