Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAIN Capital UK Limited v Citigroup Inc (No 2) [2016] FCA 243 Appeal from: Citigroup Inc v City Index Limited [2014] ATMO 36
File number: NSD 524 of 2014
Judge: MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment: 11 March 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – application for leave to amend notice of appeal and reply and to rely on further evidence – where proposed amendment narrows the scope of proceedings – whether interests of justice require application to be granted – whether prejudice to the respondent ought be compensable by an indemnity costs order – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 r 16.08(b) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 44
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261 King v Yurisich (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 51 Kowa Company v NV Organon (2005) 223 ALR 27 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) [2016] FCAFC 2 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm), in the matter of Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) [2015] FCA 1098 TSG Franchise Management Pty Ltd v Cigarette and Gift Warehouse (Franchising) Pty Ltd (No 1) [2015] FCA 739
Date of hearing: 9 March 2016
Registry: New South Wales
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