Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 11) [2011] FCA 1108

Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 11) [2011] FCA 1108

The Court held that the proffered new evidence regarding the Tri Tech fire does not establish a risk justifying the excessive cost and burden of requiring steel plate labelling for IBCs. There remains no evidence of an Australian fire caused by IBCs nor any support that confusion or reputational damage to Schutz warrants such alternative relief. Therefore, alternative labelling relief is refused and the application is dismissed with costs.

Parties
First Applicant/cross Respondent: Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907); Second Applicant/cross Respondent: Schutz GmbH & Co KGAA; Third Applicant/cross Respondent: Protechna S.A.; First Respondent/cross Claimant: VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705); Second Respondent/cross Claimant: VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 314 195)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application (motion for Alternative Relief) / Post Judgment Application on Alternative Relief
Outcome
Application (motion for alternative labelling relief) dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Alternative to Injunctive Relief, Labelling Requirements, Costs, Evidentiary Sufficiency
Trade Practices Practice and Procedure Alternative to Injunctive Relief Labelling Requirements Costs Evidentiary Sufficiency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 009 069 907)

First Applicant/cross Respondent

Schutz GmbH & Co KGAA

Second Applicant/cross Respondent

Protechna S.A.

Third Applicant/cross Respondent

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 313 705)

First Respondent/cross Claimant

VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd (ACN 095 314 195)

Second Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application (motion for Alternative Relief) / Post Judgment Application on Alternative Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence supports alternative relief of requiring steel plate labelling on IBCs as opposed to injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the cost and burden of steel plate labelling is justified
  3. 3 Whether there is evidence that justifies departing from previous orders concerning labelling

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the proffered new evidence regarding the Tri Tech fire does not establish a risk justifying the excessive cost and burden of requiring steel plate labelling for IBCs. There remains no evidence of an Australian fire caused by IBCs nor any support that confusion or reputational damage to Schutz warrants such alternative relief. Therefore, alternative labelling relief is refused and the application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application (motion for alternative labelling relief) dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants/cross-respondents' motion in relation to alternative labelling relief dated 3 June 2011 be dismissed with costs.