Snappi Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v R.P. International Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 96

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)No. QG 200 of 1992 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SNAPPI HOLDINGS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED and SNAPPI BABY PTY. LTD. (ACN: 010 959 190) Applicants AND: R.P. INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD. (ACN: 009 340 265), CLIFFORD RAYMOND PAGET and DELORES MAURI Respondents MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 27 February, 1995 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondents be restrained from making, offering for sale, selling or otherwise using or dealing with the device identified as exhibit 15 or any substantially similar device. 2. The respondents be restrained from doing anything to cause the device identified as exhibit 15 or any substantially similar device to be made, offered for sale, sold or otherwise used or dealt with. 3. The respondents deliver up all articles in their power, possession, custody or control which are the same as or substantially similar to exhibit 15. 4. The respondents pay to the applicants its costs of and incidental to these proceedings from and after 18 February, 1993, including reserved costs. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. QG 200 of 1992 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SNAPPI HOLDINGS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED and SNAPPI BABY PTY. LTD. (ACN: 010 959 190) Applicants AND: R.P. INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD. (ACN: 009 340 265), CLIFFORD RAYMOND PAGET and DELORES MAURI Respondents Coram: Drummond J Date: 27 February, 1995 Place: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter the applicants/cross-respondents appear by counsel and seek to proceed with the hearing fixed for today. There is correspondence received by the Court in the course of the past month from the respondents in which the respondents seek what appears to be a relatively short adjournment of today's hearing. None of the respondents has appeared today. The applicants seek an order under O. 32, r. 2(1)(d) the Federal Court Rules that the Court proceed with the trial, so far as the applicants' claims for relief which they intend pursuing are concerned, and an order under O. 32, r. 2(1)(c) dismissing the cross-claim. It is necessary to say something of the background of the case in order to explain why I have decided to grant the orders sought by the applicants. By application filed 18 December, 1992, the applicants sought an injunction to restrain the sole respondent, R.P. International Pty. Ltd., from infringing the applicants' Australian patent in respect of a nappy fastener. An injunction was also sought to restrain that respondent from infringing the applicants' registered design in respect of the same item; orders were also sought for the delivery up of all infringing articles and an inquiry as to the damages or alternatively an account of profits made by the respondent by reason of the infringement of the patent and of the copyright in the registered design. Later, Mr. Paget and Ms. Mauri, who are associated with the corporate respondent, were joined as respondents and on 8 September, 1993, an amended application was filed seeking relief against the company, Mr. Paget and Ms. Mauri, in terms similar to the relief originally sought only against the corporate respondent. On 26 October, 1993 I gave judgment in favour of the applicants on its claim for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents until the trial of the action or earlier order from making, offering for sale, selling or otherwise using or dealing with a device embodying the applicants' invention identified in the order, or with any substantially similar device. I also gave directions for the further conduct of the proceedings, including directions for delivery of pleadings by the respondents and for discovery and inspection. On 31 December, 1993 the respondents filed an amended defence and a cross‑claim, in which the respondents, by their cross-claim, sought a declaration that the applicants' patent was invalid, and also an order revoking the patent. On 16 December, 1994 Cooper J ordered that the action be set down for hearing by me over one week, to commence today, Monday, 27 February, 1995. The respondents were represented by their solicitor on this occasion. The next thing that happened, so far as the material available to me is concerned, was that Mr. Paget wrote as a director of the corporate respondent to the District Registrar in these terms. After referring to the hearing date of 27 February, 1995 he said: "Due to circumstances beyond our control the Solicitors acting for us have had to withdraw from the case and we must therefore ask that the trial be deferred until such time as we are able to resolve this position."