Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 596

Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 596

Assuming s 135 can apply to procedural unfairness and assuming the material is relevant, the Court would not prevent the respondent from using the documents because any procedural prejudice to the applicants would not arise where an adjournment would be granted if sought; admissibility remained to be argued.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Trial; Ruling Concerning Tender of Evidence
Outcome
The Court declined to prevent the respondent from using the material, assuming relevance, and indicated that further argument on admissibility was necessary.
Legal Topics
['discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'procedural Prejudice' 'admissibility' 'tender of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135']
['evidence' 'intellectual Property'] ['discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'procedural Prejudice' 'admissibility' 'tender of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135']

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

Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Trial; Ruling Concerning Tender of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a bundle of documents tendered by the respondent was admissible.' 'If admissible, whether Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135 could be used to prevent the respondent from tendering the evidence because of procedural prejudice to the applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming s 135 can apply to procedural unfairness and assuming the material is relevant, the Court would not prevent the respondent from using the documents because any procedural prejudice to the applicants would not arise where an adjournment would be granted if sought; admissibility remained to be argued.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to prevent the respondent from using the material, assuming relevance, and indicated that further argument on admissibility was necessary.

Orders

  • []