Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 910

Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 910

Leave to amend was granted only for proposed paragraphs 26(d) and 26(e) of the Defence because they went to construction of the Confidentiality Agreement and put Precision Tracking on notice of those contentions. The remaining contested amendments were refused because they could have been pleaded earlier, there was no persuasive explanation for delay, and allowing them would likely require further evidence and prejudice Precision Tracking's preparation for the resumed trial. Narrowed discovery orders were made because the categories concerning disclosure, reseller agreements, and confidentiality agreements for systems incorporating specified confidential information were directly relevant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and for Further Discovery After Adjournment of Trial
Outcome
Domino's interlocutory application was allowed in part and otherwise refused; limited amendments and narrowed discovery were ordered.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'discovery by Categories' 'standard Discovery' 'breach of Confidence' 'patents and Associated Statutes' 'confidential Information']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'discovery by Categories' 'standard Discovery' 'breach of Confidence' 'patents and Associated Statutes' 'confidential Information']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and for Further Discovery After Adjournment of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Domino's should be granted leave to amend its pleadings to add allegations concerning collaboration or joint ownership of inventions, reagitated amendments, construction of a confidentiality agreement, restraint of trade, and alleged confidential information of Domino's." 'Whether the proposed discovery categories sought documents that were directly relevant and ought to be discovered in accordance with r 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether the timing of the proposed amendments, the explanation for delay, and prejudice to Precision Tracking's preparation for the resumed trial justified refusal of leave."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted only for proposed paragraphs 26(d) and 26(e) of the Defence because they went to construction of the Confidentiality Agreement and put Precision Tracking on notice of those contentions. The remaining contested amendments were refused because they could have been pleaded earlier, there was no persuasive explanation for delay, and allowing them would likely require further evidence and prejudice Precision Tracking's preparation for the resumed trial. Narrowed discovery orders were made because the categories concerning disclosure, reseller agreements, and confidentiality agreements for systems incorporating specified confidential information were directly relevant...

Court Disposition

Domino's interlocutory application was allowed in part and otherwise refused; limited amendments and narrowed discovery were ordered.

Orders

  • ['By consent, by 28 June 2018, the respondents give the discovery referred to in paragraph 1 of the letter from Allens to DLA Piper dated 8 May 2018, namely, standard discovery of discoverable documents arising from a review of documents previously provided by the respondents to their former solicitors, Corrs...