Lamb v Hog’s Breath Company Pty Ltd ( No 3) [2007] FCA 972

Lamb v Hog’s Breath Company Pty Ltd ( No 3) [2007] FCA 972

Because the applicant did not comply with the time limit for administering interrogatories and no extension was granted, the interrogatories were filed without leave and there was no need to vacate the earlier orders. Given the procedural history and the fact that the proposed interrogatories went beyond the level of detail contemplated by the earlier order, the preferable course was for the respondents to file defences before discovery and any application for interrogatories were revisited.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Proceeding / First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents' Motion to Vacate Orders for Interrogatories and Proceed to Defences
Outcome
Motion otherwise dismissed; respondents ordered to file defences and applicant to file any reply; costs of the motion are costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'pleadings' 'discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'moral Rights' 'additional Damages' 'conversion Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'copyright'] ['interrogatories' 'pleadings' 'discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'moral Rights' 'additional Damages' 'conversion Damages']

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

Copyright Infringement Proceeding / First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents' Motion to Vacate Orders for Interrogatories and Proceed to Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders permitting interrogatories before the filing of defences should be vacated or bypassed in favour of filing defences first.' "Whether the interrogatories served by the applicant were within the scope and time permitted by the Court's orders of 24 April 2007." 'Whether discovery and interrogatories should be revisited after the close of pleadings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant did not comply with the time limit for administering interrogatories and no extension was granted, the interrogatories were filed without leave and there was no need to vacate the earlier orders. Given the procedural history and the fact that the proposed interrogatories went beyond the level of detail contemplated by the earlier order, the preferable course was for the respondents to file defences before discovery and any application for interrogatories were revisited.

Court Disposition

Motion otherwise dismissed; respondents ordered to file defences and applicant to file any reply; costs of the motion are costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["On the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents' motion filed 15 June 2007:" 'The respondents are to file and serve their defences by 31 August 2007.' 'The applicant is to file and serve any reply by 21 September 2007.' "The first, third, fourth and fifth respondents' motion is otherwise dismissed." 'The costs...