Generate Group Pty Limited v Sea Tech Automation Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 255

Generate Group Pty Limited v Sea Tech Automation Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 255

The Court declined to recall or amend its reasons for the interlocutory judgment, finding that both the Court and the plaintiff's counsel reasonably understood a concession regarding copyright in object code to have been made during oral argument by the defendant's counsel. Even if the relevant paragraph were omitted, the decision on balance of convenience would have been the same, and the interlocutory nature of the issue left the point open for final determination at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Interlocutory Proceedings / Application to Recall Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Recall Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment' 'principles for Reopening Interlocutory Judgment' 'costs in Interlocutory Applications']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['application to Recall Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment' 'principles for Reopening Interlocutory Judgment' 'costs in Interlocutory Applications']

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

Notice of Motion in Interlocutory Proceedings / Application to Recall Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should recall reasons for judgment delivered on 15 March 2007 and give different reasons omitting paragraph 71' 'Proper approach to applications to recall or reopen interlocutory reasons' 'Assessment of costs following unsuccessful recollection application']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to recall or amend its reasons for the interlocutory judgment, finding that both the Court and the plaintiff's counsel reasonably understood a concession regarding copyright in object code to have been made during oral argument by the defendant's counsel. Even if the relevant paragraph were omitted, the decision on balance of convenience would have been the same, and the interlocutory nature of the issue left the point open for final determination at trial.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion to recall reasons for judgment is dismissed.' 'Costs of the notice of motion seeking interlocutory relief are to be costs of the proceedings.' 'Costs of the adjournment application of 7 March 2007 are to be costs of the cause.' "Costs of the defendant's application to reopen qua the notice of...