U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd & Anor v U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1066

U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd & Anor v U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1066

There is no substance in the allegations that the cross-claim and amended defence are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, nor that delay by Tasman-Warajay and Tasman-Engineers warrants striking out. The stay application fails, and joinder of directors as cross-respondents is appropriate given their relationship to the applicant's relevant conduct.

Parties
Applicant / Cross Respondent: U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd; Respondent / First Cross Claimant: Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd; Second Cross Claimant: Tasman-Engineers Pty Ltd; Second Cross Respondent (added by Order): Kevin William Lewis; Second Cross Respondent (added by Order): Michael David Perry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding Strike Out, Stay, and Joinder Orders
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed. Directors joined as cross-respondents. Costs orders made in favour of cross-claimants.
Legal Topics
Patents, Striking Out Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Joinder of Parties, Costs
Intellectual Property Patents Striking Out Pleadings Abuse of Process Case Management Joinder of Parties Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd

Respondent / First Cross Claimant

Tasman-Engineers Pty Ltd

Second Cross Claimant

Kevin William Lewis

Second Cross Respondent (added by Order)

Michael David Perry

Second Cross Respondent (added by Order)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding Strike Out, Stay, and Joinder Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence and cross-claim should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether there was delay justifying striking out
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending related action

Ratio Decidendi

There is no substance in the allegations that the cross-claim and amended defence are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, nor that delay by Tasman-Warajay and Tasman-Engineers warrants striking out. The stay application fails, and joinder of directors as cross-respondents is appropriate given their relationship to the applicant's relevant conduct.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed. Directors joined as cross-respondents. Costs orders made in favour of cross-claimants.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion (filed 20 September 1996) is dismissed.
  • Kevin William Lewis and Michael David Perry be added as second cross-respondents to the action.