Christian v Societe Des Produits Nestle SA [2015] FCA 1341

Christian v Societe Des Produits Nestle SA [2015] FCA 1341

The applicant did not establish any irreparable loss or damage to justify a stay of the Full Court's orders pending his application for special leave to appeal. Costs and inconvenience identified were trivial and did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and the prospects of the special leave application were not sufficiently strong. Allegations of bias were fanciful and constituted an abuse of process.

Parties
Applicant: James William Christian; First Respondent: Société Des Produits Nestlé SA; Second Respondent: Nestlé Australia Ltd ACN 000 011 316
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay Pending Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders, Special Leave to Appeal, Trade Mark Infringement, Bias Allegation
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Stay of Orders Special Leave to Appeal Trade Mark Infringement Bias Allegation

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James William Christian

Applicant

Société Des Produits Nestlé SA

First Respondent

Nestlé Australia Ltd ACN 000 011 316

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay Pending Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying a stay
  3. 3 Alleged bias of a judge of the Full Court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any irreparable loss or damage to justify a stay of the Full Court's orders pending his application for special leave to appeal. Costs and inconvenience identified were trivial and did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and the prospects of the special leave application were not sufficiently strong. Allegations of bias were fanciful and constituted an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory application filed on 18 November 2015 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs, if any, of the respondents incurred in respect of the interlocutory application.