R.R. & S.M. Powell Pty Ltd v Cafike Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 51

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

JUDGMENT No.2! =ySSx

© cteseseed

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) T. Nos. G 2 and 3 of 1987

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: R. R. AND S. M. POWELL PTY. LTD. Applicant (Respondent) and

CAFIKE Pry. LTD. Respondent (Applicant)

COURT: NORTHROP J.

io

JN : 4 FEBRUARY 1989

RECEIVE 1 1FEB 1988

DERAL COURT OF PEO AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

PLACE: HOBART

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are listed for hearing today before me two actions, namely, T. No. G 2 of 1987 and T. No. G3 of 1987. In the first action the applicant is R.R. and S.M. Powell

Pty. Ltd. ("Powell"), and the respondent is Cafike Pty. Ltd.

("Cafike"), trading as the Port Arthur Cider Company; that action was commenced on 4 March 1987 and was based upon 5.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to the use by Cafike of the word "Grove" in relation to fruit juices. The second action was commenced by Cafike and the respondent is Powell, and, in addition to claims based upon 5.52 of the

Trade Practices Act, claims are made for damages for breaches

of contract as well as damages under other causes of action, As a result of directions given, the matters have proceeded basically in T. No. G 3 of 1987 and in that action there has been further pleadings by Cafike, a further defence by Powell, a cross-claim by Powell, and a reply and defence to cross-claim. The issues between the parties are very wide and cover very many causes of action coming within the

original as well as the accrued jurisdiction of the Federal

Court.

The matters have had an unfortunate history in that although the actions were commenced in March of 1987, the yoint matter has proceeded rather slowly. Despite a number of directions hearings, the parties had not always complied

with directions given. The last directions hearing was held