Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 13) [2011] FCA 1113

Schutz DSL (Australia) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 13) [2011] FCA 1113

Schutz did not establish a satisfactory basis for release of the security because VIP's alleged damages from being precluded from the market during the injunction period could not be determined at this stage and might be in the order of $500,000, the Court would not draw the inference invited by Schutz about VIP's non-re-entry into the DG-IBCs market, and there was no direct financial evidence as to the capacity of Schutz DSL.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Trade Marks Proceeding Involving a Motion for Release of Security for Damages and Undertaking / Applicants/cross Respondents' Motion Dated 3 June 2011 for Release of Security
Outcome
The applicants/cross-respondents' motion for release of the security dated 3 June 2011 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['release of Security' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'change in Circumstances' 'period for Which Damages Can Be Claimed']
['trade Marks' 'civil Procedure'] ['release of Security' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'change in Circumstances' 'period for Which Damages Can Be Claimed']

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

Trade Marks Proceeding Involving a Motion for Release of Security for Damages and Undertaking / Applicants/cross Respondents' Motion Dated 3 June 2011 for Release of Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the $250,000 cash security provided for the undertaking as to damages should be released to the first applicant/cross-respondent.' 'Whether changed circumstances justified discharge of the security for damages.' "Whether VIP's possible damages were limited to the 12-day period of the ex parte injunction or could extend to the later period in which VIP said it was precluded from entry into the market."]

Ratio Decidendi

Schutz did not establish a satisfactory basis for release of the security because VIP's alleged damages from being precluded from the market during the injunction period could not be determined at this stage and might be in the order of $500,000, the Court would not draw the inference invited by Schutz about VIP's non-re-entry into the DG-IBCs market, and there was no direct financial evidence as to the capacity of Schutz DSL.

Court Disposition

The applicants/cross-respondents' motion for release of the security dated 3 June 2011 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicants/cross-respondents' motion for release of the security dated 3 June 2011 be dismissed with costs."]