Solomon v Green [2001] NSWCA 157

Solomon v Green [2001] NSWCA 157

Leave to appeal was refused because there was ample evidence supporting the District Court's credibility-based findings that the appellant made false representations which induced the respondents to buy the patent, caused damage, and were misleading or deceptive under s 42 of the Fair Trading Act (1987) NSW; the allegation of interference with a Court exhibit had no evidentiary support.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From Orders of Naughton DCJ in the District Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; second application for leave to appeal necessarily dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assignment of Patent' 'misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'alleged Interference With a Court Exhibit']
['fair Trading' 'intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['assignment of Patent' 'misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'alleged Interference With a Court Exhibit']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From Orders of Naughton DCJ in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether findings that the appellant made false representations inducing the respondents to buy the patent should be disturbed.' 'Whether the representations were misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s 42 of the Fair Trading Act (1987) NSW.' "Whether there was evidence supporting the alleged interference with a Court exhibit by the respondents' barrister and solicitor." 'Whether a second application for leave to appeal from refusal of a stay application should be dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was ample evidence supporting the District Court's credibility-based findings that the appellant made false representations which induced the respondents to buy the patent, caused damage, and were misleading or deceptive under s 42 of the Fair Trading Act (1987) NSW; the allegation of interference with a Court exhibit had no evidentiary support.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; second application for leave to appeal necessarily dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.' 'Second application for leave to appeal dismissed.']