3 Apr 2019
The interim injunction was discharged because later substantive orders in Companies Act proceedings (Osborne J) required transfer of the intellectual property back to SBL, thereby resolving the threatened loss the injunction was designed to prevent and providing equivalent enforcement remedies; consequently the interim injunction was superfluous and was rescinded, and costs were reserved.
15 Mar 2019
The assignment of PATeye was not entered into in the ordinary course of Solar Bright's business (it disposed of the company's principal asset in the context of an intended liquidation), therefore the onus shifted to the Martins to prove fair value; the Martins failed to discharge that onus and provided no reliable valuation or adequate consideration, so Solar Bright validly avoided the transaction under s141 and is entitled to declaratory relief and restorative orders.
19 Jul 2018
To prevent irreversible loss of the only potentially valuable asset while substantive rights remain unresolved, the court will vary the interim injunction to permit Mr Martin to apply to renew the PATeye and DATAeye patents in his name and to fund the renewals initially, while reserving substantive resolution (including the rescission application) for further hearing; failure to properly serve the rescission application precluded full determination.
19 Jun 2008
IMI was ordered joined because it is the apparent owner of the asserted copyrights, its presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the matters in dispute, the proceeding was sufficiently advanced that joinder would avoid wasteful duplication, and IMS may have an arguable (albeit novel) claim; joinder granted subject to filing a second amended statement of claim within 28 days providing specified particulars.