Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Falkenhagen v West (No 3) [2021] FCA 1176 File number(s): QUD 508 of 2019
Judgment of: DOWNES J
Date of judgment: 29 September 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file an amended statement of claim – where proposed amended statement of claim liable to be struck out under rule 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – leave refused.
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 ss 18, 20 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.03, 16.04, 16.21 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 22
Cases cited: Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2020] FCA 1629 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 50 Falkenhagen v West [2021] FCA 575 Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd (No 2) (2021) 150 ACSR 387; [2021] FCA 345 Imobilari Pty Ltd v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (2008) 252 ALR 41; [2008] FCA 1920 Richards v Han [2020] FCA 1886 Takemoto v Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1081
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Patents and Associated Statutes
Number of paragraphs: 99
Date of hearing: 16 September 2021
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Wrenn
Solicitor for the Applicant: Arnell & Cooper Lawyers
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