Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Limited [2016] FCA 1199 File number: NSD 385 of 2014
Judge: BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 10 October 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file further amended notice of cross-claim – application to lift stay of proceedings against second cross-respondent – whether leave should be granted in accordance with the purpose in section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether proposed amendments would be struck out – whether proposed misleading and deceptive conduct pleadings largely duplicate contractual promises – whether proposed pleadings impose a condition of mind on a company – whether adequate explanation was provided for delay in providing security for costs – whether conditions should be imposed on the lift of stay COSTS – application for security for costs – costs of, occasioned by and incidental to applications – whether party seeking an indulgence should pay the costs of doing so
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 s 18 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 37P, 56 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.32 – 1.35, 8.21, 16.41, 16.43, 16.51. 16.53, 19.01
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 2) [2010] FCA 982 Bowen Energy Limited v 2KD Drilling Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 275 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 788 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261 Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v FKP Limited & Anor [2008] FCA 1915 Concrete Construction Group v Litevale Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 670; (2002) 170 FLR 290 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 118; (2010) 63 AILR 101 Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303 GAIN Capital UK Limited v Citigroup Inc (No 3) [2016] FCA 582 Golski v Kirk (1987) 14 FCR 143 Lane Cove Council v Michael Davies & Associates and Others [2012] NSWSC 727 Lee v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] FCA 467 Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75 McGrath; in the matter of Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2; 165 FCR 230 O'Neil v T D Williamson Aust Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 398 Raphael Shin Enterprises Pty Limited v Waterpoint Shepherds Bay Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 743 Research in Motion Ltd v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Limited (2009) 176 FCR 66 Suzlon Energy Ltd v Bangad (2011) 196 FCR 259 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) [2016] FCAFC 2; 332 ALR 199 Truth about Motorways Pty Limited v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited [2001] FCA 1603 University of Sydney v Objectivision Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1528 University of Sydney v ResMed Limited (No 5) [2012] FCA 232 Wotton v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 910
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