Polaris Communications Pty Ltd v Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1111

Polaris Communications Pty Ltd v Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1111

The Technical Specification of the M15D was held not relevant as the pleadings did not put technical equivalence in issue, and the available evidence sufficed for trial purposes; however, the Technology Licence and Distribution Agreement, except Annexure B, was relevant to the alleged relationship affecting independence of the comparison report and should be produced to Polaris' legal representatives under confidentiality undertakings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applicant's motion granted in part, otherwise dismissed; Second respondent's motion dismissed; Each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'relevance of Documents' 'confidentiality']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'relevance of Documents' 'confidentiality']

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

Interlocutory Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Technical Specification of the M15D device is relevant and discoverable' 'Whether the unredacted Technology Licence and Distribution Agreement between respondents should be produced for inspection']

Ratio Decidendi

The Technical Specification of the M15D was held not relevant as the pleadings did not put technical equivalence in issue, and the available evidence sufficed for trial purposes; however, the Technology Licence and Distribution Agreement, except Annexure B, was relevant to the alleged relationship affecting independence of the comparison report and should be produced to Polaris' legal representatives under confidentiality undertakings.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion granted in part, otherwise dismissed; Second respondent's motion dismissed; Each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • ["Respondents to provide to applicant's solicitors an unredacted copy of the Technology Licence and Distribution Agreement dated 14 February 2005 (excluding Annexure B) for inspection by applicant's solicitors and counsel subject to confidentiality undertaking." "Applicant's motion otherwise dismissed." "Second...