Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. 4.12.3 57 9 94
Sopasenccenesscen: eneenerenone
ne CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Affidavits filed pursuant to Court order - application to make use of information in affidavits against third parties - release from undertaking to Court
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 116
Springfield Nominees Pty Limited v Bridgelands Securities Limited (1992) 38 FCR 217
Sony Corporation and Another v Anand and Others (1981) Fleet Street Reports page 398
AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v MARTIN PATRICK DYASON & OTHERS No VG 68 of 1989
NORTHROP J MELBOURNE 12 DECEMBER 1994
RECEIVED 29DEC 1994
PEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
IN -THE- FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 68 of 1989 GENERAL DIVISTON
BETWEEN:
AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Applicant MARTIN PATRICK DYASON_ & OTHERS Respondents NORTHROP J MELBOURNE
12 DECEMBER 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a return of a motion on notice dated 8 November
1994 brought by the applicants in this matter against the
respondents seeking the following orders:
"dT,
The Applicants have leave to use the information contained in the affidavit of the Respondents, sworn lst July 1994, for the purpose of:
(a) contacting the persons named in the said affidavit to request delivery up to the Applicants' solicitors, Stephens Solicitors of 236 Coventry Street, South Melbourne, of any Autokeys in the possession of such person for destruction or disposal by the Applicants;
(b) bringing proceedings against such persons, if the Applicants so determine.
Julian Stephens and Katarina Klaric, principals of the firm, Stephens Solicitors, be released from the
undertakings given to the Court on the 6th June i994."
The history of this matter is set out in the affidavit of
- --+ 2
Julian Ronald Stephens sworn 1 December 1994 and the exhibits thereto, and the affidavit of Peter Vincent Kelly sworn 12 December 1994, that is today, and filed today, together with the exhibits thereto. On the hearing of the motion, Mr Kelly appeared in person. Mr and Mrs Dyason did not appear, although the Court was informed that they had been served with the notice of motion. Although there is no affidavit of service presently on file, counsel for the applicants has indicated that affidavits will be filed showing service of the
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