Federal Court of Australia
10.
In the same case, Murphy J. said at p. 552:
"However when substantive rights are not
effectively determined, an appellate court
should be extremely reluctant to interfere."
The present case is one to which it is appropriate to apply the above observations. The effect of an appeal from an interlocutory judgment usually does no more than delay the final
hearing and that appears to be the position in this case. Such
appeals are likely to be worthwhile only in unusual cases. This
is not such a case.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that this and the 4 preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of krs-Heneur
Me-Tustice "TNL Contd, (4 Qed n Drees en A
Associate
Dated: #12!
FEDERAL LAW COURTS
TLL
*810224*
846 of 10056
DATACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS
CATCHWORDS
Trade Practices ~ Consumer protection - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Use in relation to wine made in
Spain of words "champagne", "imported champagne" and "unknown imported champagne" - whether interlocutory
injunction should be granted.
Trade Practices Act 1974 ss,52, 80
COMITE INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU VIN DE CHAMPAGNE AND ANOR v. N.L. BURTON PTY. LIMITED T/as FREIXENET SPANISH CHAMPAGNE DISTRIBUTORS AND ANOR
No. G.149 of 1981 FRANKI J. 7 December 1981
Sydney.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) NO. G.149 OF 1981
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: COMITE INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU VIN DE CHAMPAGNE and CHARLES BARKER AUSTRALTA
Applicants
AND: N.L. BURTON PTY. LIMITED T/as FREIXENET SPANISH CHAMPAGNE DISTRIBUTORS
and
GARLAND FARWAGI & PARTNERS PTY. LIMITED
Respondents
FRANKI J.
7 December 1981
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De Champagne (hereinafter called "Comite") seeks interlocutory injunctive relief pursuant to s.80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") alleging a contravention of s.52 by N.L. Burton Pty. Limited T/as Freixenet Spanish Champagne Distributors and Garland Farwagi & Partners Pty. Ltd. ("the respondents"). The application by Comite for interlocutory relief was first before me on 4 November 1981 when I refused to make any orders and I
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