Dollinger Filtration Ltd v Laminar Air Flow Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 817

Dollinger Filtration Ltd v Laminar Air Flow Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 817

The amendment to resile from the admission in paragraph 50 of the defence was refused because the respondent provided no adequate explanation or evidential basis for the change, the applicants would be prejudiced by having to investigate matters from 50 years ago shortly before trial, and the interests of justice would not be served by allowing the amendment at such a late stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Defence / Interlocutory Judgment on Amendment Application Before Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend the defence was refused for the proposed amendment to paragraph 50; other unopposed amendments were granted.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amendment of Defence' 'trade Marks' 'admissions' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['pleadings' 'amendment of Defence' 'trade Marks' 'admissions' 'case Management']

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

Application for Leave to Amend Defence / Interlocutory Judgment on Amendment Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the respondent to amend its defence to resile from an admission that Vokes UK filed the application for the 505 mark' 'Whether the applicants would be prejudiced by the amendment shortly before trial' 'Whether the respondent provided an adequate explanation for seeking to withdraw the admission']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to resile from the admission in paragraph 50 of the defence was refused because the respondent provided no adequate explanation or evidential basis for the change, the applicants would be prejudiced by having to investigate matters from 50 years ago shortly before trial, and the interests of justice would not be served by allowing the amendment at such a late stage.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the defence was refused for the proposed amendment to paragraph 50; other unopposed amendments were granted.

Orders

  • ['The respondent has leave to amend its further amended defence in the form of the draft second further amended defence exhibited to the affidavit of John Fasha filed on 16 July 2021, save for the amendment to paragraph 50 which is refused.' 'The respondent to file the second further amended defence in accordance...