We Two Pty Ltd v Shorrock (No 2) [2005] FCA 934
The settlement agreement effected an accord and satisfaction releasing We Two Pty Ltd's claims in both the Australian and United States actions, and it was an implied term that We Two Pty Ltd would discontinue or have dismissed its claim in the United States action. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to enforce the...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application by Motion in a Federal Court Action to Enforce Terms of Settlement and Address a Foreign Default Judgment and Injunction / Reasons for Judgment on Motion After Settlement; Claim and Cross Claim Dismissed; Motion Adjourned for Further Hearing
- Outcome
- The claim and cross-claim were dismissed; the motion filed on 1 July 2005 was adjourned to a date to be fixed; costs were reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['foreign Judgment Allegedly Obtained in Breach of Settlement Agreement' 'compromise of Action' 'accord and Satisfaction' 'enforcement of Settlement Terms' 'summary Procedure by Motion' 'federal Court Jurisdiction' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'passing Off' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application by Motion in a Federal Court Action to Enforce Terms of Settlement and Address a Foreign Default Judgment and Injunction / Reasons for Judgment on Motion After Settlement; Claim and Cross Claim Dismissed; Motion Adjourned for Further Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to enforce terms of settlement of an action properly instituted in the Court.' 'Whether an application to enforce the compromise could be brought by motion in the action rather than by a fresh proceeding.' "Whether the settlement agreement released and discharged We Two Pty Ltd's claims in the Australian action and the United States action." 'Whether We Two Pty Ltd breached the settlement agreement by continuing the United States action and procuring the permanent injunction.' 'Whether discretionary factors including delay, alleged breach of the injunction, and alleged breach of the settlement agreement justified refusing relief requiring We Two Pty Ltd to take steps to vacate the United States judgment.' 'Whether the presence of Mr Housden as a plaintiff in the United States action affected the utility of any order against We Two Pty Ltd.']
Ratio Decidendi
The settlement agreement effected an accord and satisfaction releasing We Two Pty Ltd's claims in both the Australian and United States actions, and it was an implied term that We Two Pty Ltd would discontinue or have dismissed its claim in the United States action. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and could do so by motion in the existing action. By taking the United States action to final judgment, We Two Pty Ltd violated the settlement agreement; however, because Mr Housden was also a plaintiff in the United States action and was not a party to the settlement agreement, the Court could not on the present evidence determine whether an order requiring We Two...
Court Disposition
The claim and cross-claim were dismissed; the motion filed on 1 July 2005 was adjourned to a date to be fixed; costs were reserved.
Orders
- ['The claim and cross-claim be dismissed.' 'The motion filed on 1 July 2005 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.' 'Costs reserved.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment