Austal Ships Pty Ltd (ACN 079 160 679) v Thurlow (No 2)[2007] FCA 202

Austal Ships Pty Ltd (ACN 079 160 679) v Thurlow (No 2)[2007] FCA 202

The email from Mr Merrigan to Messrs Clifford and Carter indicated that the Austal Reports had been sent to officers associated with the Incat companies before Mr Thurlow's alleged disclosure, and what those officers did with the reports could affect whether Incat Tasmania or other Incat companies were involved in infringing reproduction or other actionable conduct. Because Messrs Clifford and Carter were officers of the respondent companies, and because examination of them, Mr Thurlow and Mr Merrigan could assist Austal to identify or describe prospective respondents sufficiently for proceedings, examination orders were appropriate under Order 15A r 3(2)(a), with video link available for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Preliminary Discovery to Ascertain Prospective Respondents / Motion for Examination of Individuals Following Preliminary Discovery Orders
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; examination orders made; motion otherwise dismissed; costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'examination to Ascertain Prospective Respondents' 'confidential Internal Research Report' 'copyright Infringement' 'breach of Confidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'confidential Information'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'examination to Ascertain Prospective Respondents' 'confidential Internal Research Report' 'copyright Infringement' 'breach of Confidence']

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

Practice and Procedure; Preliminary Discovery to Ascertain Prospective Respondents / Motion for Examination of Individuals Following Preliminary Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders should be made under Order 15A rule 3(2)(a) for examination of named persons to ascertain the identity or description of persons against whom proceedings might be commenced.' 'Whether officers of the corporate respondents, including Robert Clifford and Simon Carter, should be examined in relation to the receipt and possible use or distribution of the Austal Reports.' 'Whether the examinations should be conducted in person or by video link.']

Ratio Decidendi

The email from Mr Merrigan to Messrs Clifford and Carter indicated that the Austal Reports had been sent to officers associated with the Incat companies before Mr Thurlow's alleged disclosure, and what those officers did with the reports could affect whether Incat Tasmania or other Incat companies were involved in infringing reproduction or other actionable conduct. Because Messrs Clifford and Carter were officers of the respondent companies, and because examination of them, Mr Thurlow and Mr Merrigan could assist Austal to identify or describe prospective respondents sufficiently for proceedings, examination orders were appropriate under Order 15A r 3(2)(a), with video link available for...

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; examination orders made; motion otherwise dismissed; costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to the liberty in Order 2 of the orders made 7 September 2006 and Order 15A rule 3(2), specified persons are to attend before the Court on a date to be fixed to be examined as to information which would or might lead to the identity or description of persons involved in reproducing, printing, publishing,...