Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cross [2016] FCA 1241 File number: QUD 411 of 2016
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 19 October 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoenas – privilege – trade marks attorney privilege – whether trade marks attorney and client legal privilege can be assimilated – onus of proof – where statements for claiming privilege do not rise above mere assertions – onus of proof not discharged INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – subpoenas – privilege – trade marks attorney privilege – whether trade marks attorney privilege and client legal privilege can be assimilated – onus of proof – where statements for claiming privilege do not rise above mere assertions – onus of proof not discharged
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 23 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 229 Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 29 Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys 2013 s 19
Cases cited: Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Hancock v Rinehart [2016] NSWSC 12 Woollahra Municipal Council v Westpac Banking Corporation (1994) 33 NSWLR 529
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