Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Harcourts WA Pty Ltd v Roy Weston Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1383 Citation: Harcourts WA Pty Ltd v Roy Weston Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1383
Parties: HARCOURTS WA PTY LTD v ROY WESTON NOMINEES PTY LTD
File number: SAD 224 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 6 December 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to transfer proceeding to Western Australia District Registry – where majority of persons involved in proceeding based in Western Australia – where applicant consented to part or all of substantive trial being heard in Western Australia – where applicant represented by legal practitioners in South Australia – relevance of availability of video-link facilities – balance of convenience – s 48 of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Held: the proceeding should be transferred to the Western Australia District Registry of this Court.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 48 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rules 2.02, 5.04 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 88 Australian Consumer Law s 236
Cases cited: Gun Capital Management Pty Ltd v Solamind Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1360, cited Lamb v Hog's Breath Corporation Pty Ltd (No 1) [2007] FCA 49, cited Macks v Garrett (2008) 174 FCR 151, cited National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155, cited Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1925, cited
Date of hearing: 12 November 2012
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