Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 Citation: Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227
Parties: SPEEDO HOLDINGS B.V. AND ANOR v DAVE EVANS
File number: NSD 1442 of 2011
Judge: FLICK J
Date of judgment: 3 November 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment – no defence filed – default by respondent – satisfied of claim to relief – allegations in statement of claim deemed to have been admitted – discretion in favour of granting relief
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (Cth) ss 18, 29(1)(g) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) 31A Federal Court Rules O 35A r 3, O 37 r 3, O 42 r 13, O 62 r 4, O 80 r 4 Federal Court Rules 2011 rr 1.32, 4.12, 5.01, 5.02, 5.22, 5.23, 9.52, 9.55, 10.23, 10.24, 11.01, 16.32, 40.02, 41.09 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 120 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53
Cases cited: ACOHS Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 577, considered Arthur v Vaupotic Investments Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 433, cited Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 3) [2011] FCA 340, cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v 1Cellnet LLC [2005] FCA 856, considered Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427, 236 ALR 665, considered Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 146, 161 FCR 513, cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1487, 196 ALR 576, considered Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV (No 2) [2011] FCA 352, cited Bank of Kuwait and the Middle East v Ship MV "Mawashi Al Gasseem" (No 2) [2007] FCA 815, 240 ALR 120, cited Bucketts Road Business Services Pty Ltd v Phalona Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 57, cited Conagra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302, considered CNIP Pty Ltd v Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1170, considered CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 279, 128 FCR 408, referred to Lawson v NSW Minister for Land and Water Conservation [2007] FCA 8, cited Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 388, considered Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle [2005] FCA 1239, considered Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle [2008] FCA 1417, considered McKenzie v South Australia [2005] FCA 22, 214 ALR 214, cited Microsoft Corporation v Short [2011] FCA 247, cited Pearlman (Veneers) SA (Pty) Ltd v Bartels [1954] 3 All ER 659, considered Rathner v Bendigo Skyrider Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 626, cited Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans [2011] FCA 1089, cited Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 496, cited Tucker v Western Australia [2009] FCA 1459, cited United Broadcasting International Pty Ltd v Turkplus Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1413, cited
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