Flocast Australia Pty Ltd v Purcell (No 3) [2000] FCA 1020

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Flocast Australia Pty Ltd v Purcell (No 3) [2000] FCA 1020 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Anton Piller order – execution – whether material taken not within order – undertaking to examine some material and return within a reasonable time if found to be not within terms of order – whether free and informed consent of respondent – whether legal advice from respondent's own solicitor essential – material returned eight months later – whether returned within a reasonable time – other material returned after summary judgment – other material still retained – whether documents referred to "customers of the applicant" – whether past or potential customers included – whether firms acting as agents "customers" – whether material tending to show respondent's involvement in establishing competing business before leaving employment of applicant within order even if firms referred to were not customers of the applicant WORDS AND PHRASES – "customer" Federal Court Practice Note No 10 (1993) 45 FCR 8 Flocast Australia Pty Ltd v Purcell (1998) 39 IPR 177 mentioned Flocast Australia Pty Ltd v Purcell (No 2) [1999] FCA 309 mentioned Colombia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson [1987] Ch 38 distinguished Commissioners of Taxation v English, Scottish and Australian Bank, Ltd [1920] AC 683 at 687 mentioned G W Plowman & Son Ltd v Ash [1964] 1 WLR 568 mentioned Home Counties Dairies Ltd v Skilton [1970] 1 WLR 526 at 536, 537-8 mentioned Spafax (1965) Ltd v Dommett (1972) 116 Sol J 711 mentioned J C Techforce Pty Ltd v Pearce (1996) 138 ALR 522 distinguished FLOCAST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v JAMES DESMOND PURCELL, JODY MARC, TRACEY LEE HOOK and TIGER BRONZE PTY LIMITED NO VG 379 OF 1994 HEEREY J 1 AUGUST 2000 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 379 OF 1994