The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 8) [2007] FCA 286

The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 8) [2007] FCA 286

Although asserted board membership or membership of the third respondent would not itself give standing, and Dr Gray could not appropriately intervene because he was already a party, the unusual circumstances and the interests of justice justified granting leave to Mr Sanders and Ms Daebritz to intervene on limited terms to assist the Court by submissions on why approval of the Settlement Agreement ought to be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Entitlement to Inventions and Related Cross Claims; Application for Leave to Intervene in the Third Respondent's Notice of Motion for Approval of a Settlement Agreement / Reasons and Orders on Notice of Motion for Leave to Intervene; Third Respondent's Motion Stood Over Part Heard
Outcome
Leave to intervene granted to David Sanders and Bethwyn Daebritz on limited terms; no order as to costs on their application; the third respondent's motion stood over part-heard and further affidavit and costs directions made.
Legal Topics
['intervention' 'approval of Settlement Agreement' 'receiver of Incorporated Association Assets' 'patentable Inventions Arising From Employment' 'standing of Members of Incorporated Association']
['civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'associations'] ['intervention' 'approval of Settlement Agreement' 'receiver of Incorporated Association Assets' 'patentable Inventions Arising From Employment' 'standing of Members of Incorporated Association']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Entitlement to Inventions and Related Cross Claims; Application for Leave to Intervene in the Third Respondent's Notice of Motion for Approval of a Settlement Agreement / Reasons and Orders on Notice of Motion for Leave to Intervene; Third Respondent's Motion Stood Over Part Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under Order 6 rule 17 of the Federal Court Rules to allow proposed interveners to assist the Court on whether the Settlement Agreement should be approved.' 'Whether Dr Gray, already a party to the proceeding, should be given leave to intervene.' 'Whether asserted board membership and membership of the third respondent gave the proposed interveners standing to be heard.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although asserted board membership or membership of the third respondent would not itself give standing, and Dr Gray could not appropriately intervene because he was already a party, the unusual circumstances and the interests of justice justified granting leave to Mr Sanders and Ms Daebritz to intervene on limited terms to assist the Court by submissions on why approval of the Settlement Agreement ought to be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to intervene granted to David Sanders and Bethwyn Daebritz on limited terms; no order as to costs on their application; the third respondent's motion stood over part-heard and further affidavit and costs directions made.

Orders

  • ["Leave be granted to David Sanders and Bethwyn Daebritz ('the Interveners') to intervene in the third respondent's Notice of Motion filed 28 February 2007 on the following terms: (a) The Interveners are to assist the Court by the provision of written submissions directed to the relevant considerations for the Court...