Sheiman Ultrasonic Research Foundation Pty Ltd v Novapharm Research (Australia) Pty Limited [2008] FCA 770

Sheiman Ultrasonic Research Foundation Pty Ltd v Novapharm Research (Australia) Pty Limited [2008] FCA 770

The application for summary judgment by the ninth respondent (Shelston) is refused because, although the pleadings are deficient, it cannot be said there is no reasonable prospect of a cause of action being made out. However, the conspiracy and trade practices claims in the pleadings are struck out due to lack of specificity and other deficiencies, with liberty to re-plead. Security for costs is ordered due to the applicants’ financial position and the complexity of the matter.

Parties
First Applicant: Sheiman Ultrasonic Research Foundation Pty Limited (ACN 067 053 516); Second Applicant: Vladimir Sheiman; First Respondent: Novapharm Research (Australia) Pty Limited (ACN 003 086 637); Second Respondent: Saban Ventures Pty Limited (ACN 096 504 433); Third Respondent: Nanosonics Limited (ABN 11 095 076 896); Fourth Respondent: Maurice Stang; Fifth Respondent: Steven Kritzler; Sixth Respondent: Alex (Alexei) Sava; Seventh Respondent: Serge Joukov; Eighth Respondent: Ian Ernst; Ninth Respondent: Baldwin Shelston Waters (now trading as Shelston IP)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Applications – Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for summary judgment by ninth respondent dismissed; conspiracy and trade practices claims struck out with liberty to re-plead; security for costs ordered; various costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conspiracy, Strike Out of Pleadings, Security for Costs, Patent Revocation, Misrepresentation, Agency
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Torts Corporations Law Summary Judgment Conspiracy Strike Out of Pleadings Security for Costs +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheiman Ultrasonic Research Foundation Pty Limited (ACN 067 053 516)

First Applicant

Vladimir Sheiman

Second Applicant

Novapharm Research (Australia) Pty Limited (ACN 003 086 637)

First Respondent

Saban Ventures Pty Limited (ACN 096 504 433)

Second Respondent

Nanosonics Limited (ABN 11 095 076 896)

Third Respondent

Maurice Stang

Fourth Respondent

Steven Kritzler

Fifth Respondent

Alex (Alexei) Sava

Sixth Respondent

Serge Joukov

Seventh Respondent

Ian Ernst

Eighth Respondent

Baldwin Shelston Waters (now trading as Shelston IP)

Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Applications – Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the ninth respondent (Shelston) on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the conspiracy and trade practices claims in the pleadings are deficient and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the applicants should provide security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment by the ninth respondent (Shelston) is refused because, although the pleadings are deficient, it cannot be said there is no reasonable prospect of a cause of action being made out. However, the conspiracy and trade practices claims in the pleadings are struck out due to lack of specificity and other deficiencies, with liberty to re-plead. Security for costs is ordered due to the applicants’ financial position and the complexity of the matter.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment by ninth respondent dismissed; conspiracy and trade practices claims struck out with liberty to re-plead; security for costs ordered; various costs orders made.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment by the ninth respondent is dismissed.
  • Pleadings in the Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Statement of Claim (if filed) regarding conspiracy and trade practices claims are struck out.