University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Limited (No 8) [2018] FCA 1184

University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Limited (No 8) [2018] FCA 1184

The application for leave to amend the particulars of quantum was refused because granting leave would cause substantial and irreparable prejudice to the University and Visionsearch; the case was conducted and evidence led on the basis of the original quantum claim and not on the alternative case now sought to be raised. The lateness of the proposed amendments was inordinate and unexplained, and allowing new bases for quantum late in the proceedings would undermine procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Ongoing Proceedings / Decision on Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Quantum After Close of Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Amendment refused; interlocutory application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['application for Amendment of Pleadings' 'damages for Copyright Infringement' 'damages for Breach of Confidence' 'wasted Expenditure' 'notional Royalties' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Amend Out of Time']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['application for Amendment of Pleadings' 'damages for Copyright Infringement' 'damages for Breach of Confidence' 'wasted Expenditure' 'notional Royalties' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Amend Out of Time']

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 Ongoing Proceedings / Decision on Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Quantum After Close of Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the particulars of quantum for claims of copyright infringement and breach of confidence after the close of evidence at trial' 'Whether the proposed amendments would cause prejudice to the cross-respondents and undermine procedural fairness' 'Whether the new basis for damages (wasted expenditure or notional royalties) was properly raised and substantiated']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to amend the particulars of quantum was refused because granting leave would cause substantial and irreparable prejudice to the University and Visionsearch; the case was conducted and evidence led on the basis of the original quantum claim and not on the alternative case now sought to be raised. The lateness of the proposed amendments was inordinate and unexplained, and allowing new bases for quantum late in the proceedings would undermine procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Amendment refused; interlocutory application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ["The Cross-Claimant's interlocutory application dated 2 July 2018 be dismissed." "The Cross-Claimant pay the Cross-Respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application forthwith." "The First Cross-Respondent's costs of the Interlocutory Application are assessed to be $21,525."]