Brodel v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] FCA 1016

Brodel v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] FCA 1016

Leave and extensions of time were refused because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success: the primary judge's ruling that the applicant's trade mark, copyright and passing off claims were plainly untenable was not attended by sufficient doubt, no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave, and the applicant gave no explanation for failing to apply within time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Extensions of Time / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time were dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension of Time' 'summary Dismissal' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'copyright Infringement' 'passing Off' 'statute Barred Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'limitation of Actions'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension of Time' 'summary Dismissal' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'copyright Infringement' 'passing Off' 'statute Barred Claims']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Extensions of Time / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal from the primary judge's dismissal of his proceeding under Order 20 rule 2." 'Whether time should be extended to seek leave to appeal or to file a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects in relation to trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off claims.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave and extensions of time were refused because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success: the primary judge's ruling that the applicant's trade mark, copyright and passing off claims were plainly untenable was not attended by sufficient doubt, no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave, and the applicant gave no explanation for failing to apply within time.

Court Disposition

The applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time were dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]