Warne, Shane & Ors v Genex Corp Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 573

Warne, Shane & Ors v Genex Corp Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 573

Applicant’s claims are not hopeless, there is an arguable case for vicarious liability against Rabbit Photo for Mrs Reynolds’ conduct; breach of contract and breach of confidence claims do not directly depend on vicarious liability; proceedings will not be summarily dismissed or struck out and costs are to be paid forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Determination
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'breach of Confidence' 'right to Privacy' 'copyright Infringement' 'conversion' 'contravention of Trade Practices Act' 'vicarious Liability' 'summary Judgment' 'strike Out Applications']
['contract Law' 'tort Law' 'privacy Law' 'intellectual Property Law' 'trade Practices Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'breach of Confidence' 'right to Privacy' 'copyright Infringement' 'conversion' 'contravention of Trade Practices Act' 'vicarious Liability' 'summary Judgment' 'strike Out Applications']

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

Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence, breach of privacy, infringement of copyright, conversion, and contravention of the Trade Practices Act against Rabbit Photo raise an arguable case for vicarious liability; whether vicarious liability need be shown for contract, confidence or privacy claims; whether alleged wrongful conduct for employee's benefit makes employer arguably liable; whether costs on strikeout application are payable forthwith."]

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant’s claims are not hopeless, there is an arguable case for vicarious liability against Rabbit Photo for Mrs Reynolds’ conduct; breach of contract and breach of confidence claims do not directly depend on vicarious liability; proceedings will not be summarily dismissed or struck out and costs are to be paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['First respondent Rabbit Photo (Genex Corporation Pty Limited) to pay applicants’ costs of this application, such costs to be taxed and paid forthwith pursuant to O 62 r 3(2).']