Flocast Australia Pty Ltd v Purcell, James Desmond & Ors [1996] FCA 833

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG 379 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FLOCAST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 026 468) (Applicant) AND: JAMES DESMOND PURCELL (First Respondent) AND: JODIE MARC (Second Respondent) AND: TRACEY LEE HOOKE (Third Respondent) AND: TIGER BRONZE PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 627 505) (Fourth Respondent) CORAM: Ryan J DATE: 17 September 1996 PLACE: Melbourne MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS: 1. That paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the amended defences of the first and third respondents be struck out. 2. That paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 24 and 25 of the amended defence of the fourth respondent be struck out.

3. That each of the first, third and fourth respondents have leave to file and serve by 4 October 1996 a further amended defence substituting such paragraphs for those struck out by paragraph 1 or 2 of this order as the case may be as he, she or it may be advised. 4. That liberty be reserved to any party to apply on not less than 72 hours notice in writing to the other parties. 5. That the respondents' motion on notice filed on 20 June 1995 be otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. That the applicant's costs of and incidental to its motion on notice filed on 1 June 1995 be its costs in the cause. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG 379 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FLOCAST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 026 468) (Applicant) AND: JAMES DESMOND PURCELL (First Respondent) AND: JODIE MARC (Second Respondent) AND: TRACEY LEE HOOKE (Third Respondent) AND: TIGER BRONZE PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 627 505) (Fourth Respondent) CORAM: Ryan J DATE: 17 September 1996 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RYAN J: There are two motions before the Court, one by the applicant seeking that the amended defence of each of the first, third and fourth respondents be struck out and the other by the respondents seeking, amongst other things, that the amended statement of claim be struck out. By paras. 4 and 5 of its amended statement of claim, the applicant has alleged: 4. In the course of the Applicant's business, the Applicant designed a number of vertical continuous casting machines which are used to produce the Applicant's products together with accessories and parts therefor and prepared a large number of technical descriptions, sketches, plans and design drawings (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant's copyright drawings").