Lazar, J. v. Taito (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 38

Lazar, J. v. Taito (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 38

Contempt of court is established when the respondent engages in conduct prohibited by the terms of an interlocutory injunction, regardless of whether elements such as copyright infringement or misleading/deceptive conduct are separately proved, where the injunction itself clearly restrains specific actions (such as sale of identified machines). The essential element for contempt is the breach of the order's clear terms.

Parties
Appellant (respondent): Joseph Lazar; Respondent (applicant): Taito (Australia) Pty Limited; Respondent (applicant): Taito Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appellate Judgment After Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (by the majority); contempt conviction(s) affirmed concerning sale of two machines; one justice (Neaves J) would have allowed the appeal in part concerning the five machines but upheld it regarding the two machines.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Construction of Injunction, Contempt of Court, Copyright Infringement, Trade Practices Act 1974 Ss 52 and 53, Personal Service Under Rules of Court
Contempt of Court Intellectual Property Law Trade Practices Interlocutory Injunction Construction of Injunction Copyright Infringement Trade Practices Act 1974 Ss 52 and 53 Personal Service Under Rules of Court

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Lazar

Appellant (respondent)

Taito (Australia) Pty Limited

Respondent (applicant)

Taito Corporation

Respondent (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appellate Judgment After Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with interlocutory injunction constituted contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the construction of the statement of charge required proof of copyright infringement or misleading/deceptive conduct for contempt
  3. 3 Whether finding of contempt vitiated by failure to prove copyright infringement

Ratio Decidendi

Contempt of court is established when the respondent engages in conduct prohibited by the terms of an interlocutory injunction, regardless of whether elements such as copyright infringement or misleading/deceptive conduct are separately proved, where the injunction itself clearly restrains specific actions (such as sale of identified machines). The essential element for contempt is the breach of the order's clear terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (by the majority); contempt conviction(s) affirmed concerning sale of two machines; one justice (Neaves J) would have allowed the appeal in part concerning the five machines but upheld it regarding the two machines.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.