Searle, B.A. v Keayes, P & Ors [1995] FCA 406

Searle, B.A. v Keayes, P & Ors [1995] FCA 406

The Court settled final orders substantially in the form proposed by the applicant, with modifications, because the declarations and consequential restraints were appropriate to give effect to the earlier findings about contractual ownership of the technology. The first to sixth respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party basis because they participated as active parties and their submissions were rejected, but indemnity or solicitor-client costs were refused because the identified circumstances warranting such orders were not present. A Mareva-style restraint against Peter Keayes was refused because there was no evidence of a present likelihood that he...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Proceeding About Contractual Arrangements Controlling Ownership of Technology, Patents and Confidential Information, With Consequential Practice and Procedure and Costs Issues / Hearing to Settle the Terms of Orders After Reasons for Decision Were Published on 19 May 1995
Outcome
Final orders made; costs awarded against the first to sixth respondents on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and the Mareva-style restraint refused; security released to the applicant; previous injunctions or undertakings dissolved.
Legal Topics
['short Minutes of Orders' 'declarations' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'mareva Injunction' 'patents' 'confidential Information' 'security for Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'contract' 'intellectual Property'] ['short Minutes of Orders' 'declarations' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'mareva Injunction' 'patents' 'confidential Information' 'security for 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceeding About Contractual Arrangements Controlling Ownership of Technology, Patents and Confidential Information, With Consequential Practice and Procedure and Costs Issues / Hearing to Settle the Terms of Orders After Reasons for Decision Were Published on 19 May 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the draft declarations and orders following the earlier reasons for judgment were appropriate.' 'Whether Richard Keayes should be required to co-operate in the transfer of the technology despite submitting that he had no legal or equitable interest in the patents or confidential information.' "Whether the first to sixth respondents should pay the applicant's costs, and whether costs should be apportioned for the corporate respondents." 'Whether the first and second respondents should pay costs on an indemnity basis or solicitor-client basis.' 'Whether Peter Keayes should be restrained from dealing with his interest in the technology until costs were paid or 18 months had expired.' 'Whether the security of $23,000 provided by the applicant should be released and previous injunctions or undertakings dissolved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court settled final orders substantially in the form proposed by the applicant, with modifications, because the declarations and consequential restraints were appropriate to give effect to the earlier findings about contractual ownership of the technology. The first to sixth respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party basis because they participated as active parties and their submissions were rejected, but indemnity or solicitor-client costs were refused because the identified circumstances warranting such orders were not present. A Mareva-style restraint against Peter Keayes was refused because there was no evidence of a present likelihood that he...

Court Disposition

Final orders made; costs awarded against the first to sixth respondents on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and the Mareva-style restraint refused; security released to the applicant; previous injunctions or undertakings dissolved.

Orders

  • ['Declaration 1 as in the draft orders.' 'Order 2 as in the draft orders.' 'Order 3 as in the draft orders.' 'Each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents is restrained from dealing with any of the assets the subject of the declaration in (1) in any way inconsistent with these orders.'...