Stack, George & Anor v The Brisbane City Council & Ors G S Technology Pty Ltd v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 132

Stack, George & Anor v The Brisbane City Council & Ors G S Technology Pty Ltd v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 132

The applicants' witness statements had been tendered and received as part of their case, subject only to proper objections or witnesses being unavailable for cross-examination. Given the complexity of the patent case, the twenty-eight hearing days already taken, the breadth of issues, the risk of provisional findings if further evidence were later called, and the likelihood of delay and additional expense, entertaining and ruling on the no case submission would be neither just nor efficient and was unlikely to save time, expense or trouble. The Court therefore declined to entertain or rule on the no case submission at that stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement and Validity Proceedings Concerning Australian Petty Patent No 645740 / Application During Trial for the Court to Entertain and Rule on a Submission of No Case to Answer at the Conclusion of the Respondents' Case
Outcome
Application refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['no Case to Answer' 'onus of Proof' 'election to Call No Evidence' 'patent Entitlement' 'patent Validity' 'tender of Witness Statements']
['patents' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['no Case to Answer' 'onus of Proof' 'election to Call No Evidence' 'patent Entitlement' 'patent Validity' 'tender of Witness Statements']

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

Patent Entitlement and Validity Proceedings Concerning Australian Petty Patent No 645740 / Application During Trial for the Court to Entertain and Rule on a Submission of No Case to Answer at the Conclusion of the Respondents' Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' tendered witness statements formed part of the evidence available to the respondents at this stage of the proceedings" 'Whether the Court should entertain and rule on a submission of no case to answer before all evidence was completed' 'Whether the applicants should be required to elect to call no evidence or further evidence before a no case ruling' 'Whether ruling on the no case submission would save expense, time and trouble and be a just and convenient disposition of the litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' witness statements had been tendered and received as part of their case, subject only to proper objections or witnesses being unavailable for cross-examination. Given the complexity of the patent case, the twenty-eight hearing days already taken, the breadth of issues, the risk of provisional findings if further evidence were later called, and the likelihood of delay and additional expense, entertaining and ruling on the no case submission would be neither just nor efficient and was unlikely to save time, expense or trouble. The Court therefore declined to entertain or rule on the no case submission at that stage.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application that the Court entertain and rule on a submission of no case to answer be refused.' 'The costs of and incidental to the application be reserved.']