Perceptual Devleopment Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 696

Perceptual Devleopment Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 696

The applicant failed to establish a sufficiently strong case, either that the respondents' conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct within s.52 of the Trade Practices Act or that the contractual claim was strong. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief. Some elements of the restraint appeared to operate on information already in the public domain. Security for costs should be ordered, given the applicant is based outside the jurisdiction and has no assets in Australia.

Parties
Applicant: Perceptual Development Corporation; First Respondent: Versi Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Donald Lee Zimmerman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Orders and Reasons
Outcome
Interlocutory relief dismissed; security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Security for Costs, Licensing Agreements
Contract Trade Practices Intellectual Property Equity Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Security for Costs +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perceptual Development Corporation

Applicant

Versi Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Donald Lee Zimmerman

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Orders and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' use of assessment and treatment techniques for visual dysfunction infringes the applicant's contractual rights under a licensing agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  3. 3 Whether the relevant contractual restraint is a restraint of trade and reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a sufficiently strong case, either that the respondents' conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct within s.52 of the Trade Practices Act or that the contractual claim was strong. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief. Some elements of the restraint appeared to operate on information already in the public domain. Security for costs should be ordered, given the applicant is based outside the jurisdiction and has no assets in Australia.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief dismissed; security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Applicant's claim for interlocutory relief dismissed.
  • Costs of the hearing of the claim reserved.