ae Ppa IN THE FEDERAL COURT OP LIA ) : ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 71 of 1987 8 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) RICHARDSON & WRENCH LIMITED Applicant RECEIVED PEET & COMPANY LIMITED 11 JUN 1999 FECEAAL COURT OF i "AUS First Respondent PRINCIPAL ANTHONY WAYNE LENNON Second Respondent 18 March 1987 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. This is an application by Richardson and Wrench Limited ("the applicant") for injunctive relief against Peet and Company Limited and Anthony Wayne Lennon. The applicant seeks to restrain the first respondent from using in its advertising and promotional material a logo or insignia in the form of an arrow or isosceles triangle with certain accretions thereto which, it is said by the applicant, are substantially the same or deceptively similar to its own logo or insignia which it uses, inter alia, on its promotional advertising material and letterhead. The application was filed in the Sydney registry of this Court on 25 February 1987 and a return date was given for the hearing of the applicant's motion for interlocutory injunctions today. 2. The subject of the applicant's complaint arose as long ago as May 1986. The applicant, therefore, seeks interlocutory injunctive relief on grounds that are of long standing, although the alleged offending conduct of the respondents may have either accelerated recently or reached a point which the applicant regards as unacceptable. I raised this matter immediately when I came on the bench rather than embark upon a hearing of the application for interlocutory injunctions since it was likely that a date could be given for the final hearing of this matter in the not too distant future. In these circumstances, as so often happens in cases of this kind, it would be quite academic and futile to embark on a hearing of the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. Since the matter can be heard finally in about a month's time and without in any way prejudging the result of any application for interlocutory injunctive relief, I would need to be convinced that, no matter how strong the applicant's case may be, an interlocutory injunction should be given over a period of one month when the subject matter has been under notice for many months. There is no suggestion of something happening in the immediate future which would be devastating or cause irreparable injury to the applicant. After hearing argument from counsel, the view which I had tentatively formed was confirmed. The respondents have filed a notice of motion seeking that the matter be heard in Perth and that the matter be transferred to the Western Australian registry of the Court. The essential reason being that all witnesses except one are resident in Perth; the exception 3. being the managing director of the applicant who resides in Sydney. I think the sensible course to take in the matter is to order that the proceedings be transferred to the Perth registry of the Court and that the trial be fixed for 22 April 1987. I propose to give directions to ensure that the final hearing proceeds in an orderly fashion. As to the question of costs the respondents seek an order that the costs of the motion for interlocutory injunctive relief should be their costs in the proceeding. I need not traverse all the argument that has been put in relation to that as I am inclined not to deal with the question in depth. Anything that was said can be dealt with just as effectively by the trial Judge. Indeed, I think the trial Judge, after hearing the evidence and argument in the case, would be in a better position to deal with the submissions that have been put today on the question of costs than I am at the moment. Therefore, the proper course to take is to reserve the costs of the motion for the interlocutory injunction. I make the following orders: 1. That the applicant file and serve on or before 27 March next a written statement of the grounds upon which it relies to support its case including references to causes of action and statutes where appropriate together with any further affidavits upon which it proposes to rely in support of its case; 2. 4. I give leave to the respondents, insofar as the same may be necessary, to file and serve cross claims on or before 27 March next; they are to be accompanied by particulars of the grounds relied on in support of the cross claims including, where necessary, statements as to relevant causes of action and statutes; I direct the respondents to file and serve all affidavits upon which they propose to rely in this case including affidavits in support of any cross claims on or before 10 April next; I direct the applicant to serve upon the solicitors for the respondents, on or before 16 April next, all affidavits in reply to the cross claim and to file the affidavits as soon as possible thereafter; I give the respondents leave to administer interrogatories to the applicant on any issues in the case that relate to the franchising system of the applicant and to the subject matter of items 5 and 6 in the notice to produce dated 16 March and filed on 17 March in this matter by the solicitors for the respondents, preserving to the applicant the right to resist answering interrogatories on any valid grounds that may be available. Those interrogatories are to be administered o1 or before 27 March next and they are to be answered b affidavit on or before 10 April next; 5. That the costs of the motion for interlocutory injunctive relief be reserved; I direct that the full transcript of the directions hearing this morning be prepared and made available to the parties and to the Perth registry of the Court; I order that the proceeding be transferred to the Perth registry of this Court and that the trial of the proceedings take place in Perth; and I give leave to any party to apply on two days notice. ah lL certity thai ih's <. ban prece ore LG prc otpy Aesotinte Dated: (MALEK - \S5}