Kockums AB v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCAFC 138

Kockums AB v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCAFC 138

The separate questions and declarations were inappropriate because they did not constitute a conclusive judicial determination based on concrete found or agreed facts capable of quelling the controversy. The declarations did not resolve the broader claims concerning propellers Z8959 and Z8960, Question 1(a) was framed in present and continuing terms extending to past and future disclosures, both questions proceeded on information merely claimed to be proprietary rather than found to be proprietary, and Kockums' undertaking to discontinue did not cure the absence of a final resolution. The questions therefore should be answered "Inappropriate to answer" and the declarations set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court Concerning Orders for Separate Determination of Questions and Declarations
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Questions 1(a) and 1(b) answered "Inappropriate to answer"; declarations set aside; appellant discharged from its undertaking; costs submissions invited.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Questions' 'declaratory Relief' 'advisory Opinions' 'construction of Contractual Licence Provisions' 'copyright and Confidential Information Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law' 'intellectual Property'] ['separate Determination of Questions' 'declaratory Relief' 'advisory Opinions' 'construction of Contractual Licence Provisions' 'copyright and Confidential Information 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court Concerning Orders for Separate Determination of Questions and Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order for separate determination of Questions 1(a) and 1(b) was an appropriate exercise of discretion.' 'Whether the declarations made in answer to the separate questions amounted to an advisory opinion rather than a judicial determination.' 'Whether the separate questions and declarations were based on concrete found or agreed facts and had the potential to quell the controversy between the parties.' "Whether Kockums' undertaking to discontinue the balance of the proceeding if unsuccessful on appeal cured any defect in the separate questions and declarations."]

Ratio Decidendi

The separate questions and declarations were inappropriate because they did not constitute a conclusive judicial determination based on concrete found or agreed facts capable of quelling the controversy. The declarations did not resolve the broader claims concerning propellers Z8959 and Z8960, Question 1(a) was framed in present and continuing terms extending to past and future disclosures, both questions proceeded on information merely claimed to be proprietary rather than found to be proprietary, and Kockums' undertaking to discontinue did not cure the absence of a final resolution. The questions therefore should be answered "Inappropriate to answer" and the declarations set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Questions 1(a) and 1(b) answered "Inappropriate to answer"; declarations set aside; appellant discharged from its undertaking; costs submissions invited.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Each of Questions 1(a) and 1(b) referred to in the order for separate determination made on 1 August 2001 in proceeding N 128 of 2001 be answered "Inappropriate to answer".' 'The Declarations in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the orders made on 1 August 2001 in proceeding N 128 of 2001 be set...