Paul Cardile and Ors v Led Builders Pty Ltd
[1999] HCA 18Paul Cardile and Ors
vLed Builders Pty Ltd
Judges:
Gaudron J
McHugh J
Gummow J
Callinan J
Kirby J
Legislative References:
Business Names Act 1962 (NSW) - The Act
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - s 37A
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Federal Court Act") - s 23
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) - s 115(2)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - s 80
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - s 114
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - s 170NG
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth) - Div 2 of PtIII
Crown Lands Act 1929 (SA) - The Act
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - s 37A
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - s 120; s 121; s 122
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s 486A; s 588FA; s 588FB; s 588FC; s 588FD; s 588FE; s 588FF; s 598
Case References:
A J Bekhor
&
Co Ltd v Bilton - [1981] 2 WLR 601; [1981] 2 All ER 565
Abella v Anderson - [1987] 2 Qd R 1
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper - (1981) 148 CLR 337
Australian Marketing Development Pty Ltd v Australian Interstate Marketing Pty Ltd - [1972] VR 219
Australian Trade Commission v Film Funding
&
Management Pty Ltd - (1989) 24 FCR 595
BM Auto Sales Pty Ltd v Budget Rent A Car System Pty Ltd - (1976) 51 ALJR 254; 12 ALR 363
Ballabil Holdings Pty Ltd v Hospital Products Ltd - (1985) 1 NSWLR 155
Bank of Queensland Ltd v Grant - [1984] 1 NSWLR 409
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd - [1999] HCA 9 at [89]
Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd - (1998) 72 ALJR 1470; 157 ALR 414
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation Ltd - [1981] AC 909
Bristol City Council v Lovell - [1998] 1 WLR 446; [1998] 1 All ER 775
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd - (1995) 185 CLR 410
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd - (1997) 189 CLR 345
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd - [1993] AC 334
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd - (1968) 122 CLR 25
Commissioner of Taxation v Murry - (1998) 72 ALJR 1065; 155 ALR 67
Commonwealth v Verwayen - (1990) 170 CLR 394
Corporate Affairs Commission v Bradley - [1973] 1 NSWLR 382
Dalgety Wine Estates Pty Ltd v Rizzon - (1979) 141 CLR 552
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Winter - (1988) 92 FLR 327
Doulton Potteries Ltd v Bronotte - [1971] 1 NSWLR 591
Evans v Buchanan - 555 F 2d 373 (1977)
Fejo v Northern Territory of Australia - (1998) 72 ALJR 1442; 156 ALR 721
Galaxia Maritime SA v Mineralimportexport - [1982] 1 WLR 539; [1982] 1 All ER 796
Garden Mews-St Leonards Pty Ltd v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd - (1984) 9 ACLR 91
Gibbs v David - (1875) LR 20 Eq 373
Gilford Motor Co v Horne - [1933] Ch 935
Gilfoyle Shipping Services Ltd v Binosi Pty Ltd - [1984] 2 NZLR 742
Giumelli v Giumelli - [1999] HCA 10
Glover v Walters - (1950) 80 CLR 172
Grassby v The Queen - (1989) 168 CLR 1
Hannam v Lamney - (1926) 43 WN (NSW) 68
Harris v Beauchamp Brothers - [1894] 1 QB 801
cf Soinco SACI v Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant - [1998] QB 406
Hatton v Car Maintenance Co Ltd - [1915] 1 Ch 621
Heavener v Loomes - (1924) 34 CLR 306
High v Bengal Brass Co and Bank of NSW - (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 232
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co - (1877) 2 App Cas 439
Hunt v BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd - [1980] 1 NZLR 104
ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission - (1992) 38 FCR 248
In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts - (1921) 29 CLR 257
Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn - (1977) 137 CLR 567
Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA - [1980] 2 WLR 488; [1980] 1 All ER 480
Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA - [1981] QB 65
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd - (1987) 162 CLR 612
Jago v District Court (NSW) - (1989) 168 CLR 23
Jones v Lipman - [1962] 1 WLR 832; [1962] 1 All ER 442
Knight v F P Special Assets Ltd - (1992) 174 CLR 178
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd - (1996) 35 IPR 215
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd - (1996) 70 FCR 436
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd - (1997) 78 FCR 64
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd (No 4) - (1997) 38 IPR 107
Lister
&
Co v Stubbs - (1890) 45 Ch D 1
Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA ("The Mareva") - [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509
Marine Atlantic Inc v Blyth - (1993) 113 DLR (4th) 501
Mason CJ in Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd - (1987) 162 CLR 612
Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v Aiyela - [1994] QB 366
Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck - [1996] AC 284
Mills v Northern Railway of Buenos Ayres Co - (1870) LR 5 Ch App 621
Morgan v DPP - [1970] 3 All ER 1053
National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd - (1990) 169 CLR 271
National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd - [1991] 1 VR 386
National Provincial Bank of England v Thomas - (1876) 24 WR 1013
Ord Forrest Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1974) 130 CLR 124
PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia - (1998) 72 ALJR 863; 153 ALR 520
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [No 3] - (1998) 72 ALJR 873; 153 ALR 643
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd - (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Newspapers Plc - [1991] 2 AC 370
Radio Corporation of America v Rauland Corporation - [1956] 1 QB 618
Rahman (Prince Abdul) v Abu-Taha - [1980] 1 WLR 1268; [1980] 3 All ER 409
Richardson v Cummins - (1951) 15 ABC 185
Re East Ex parte Nguyen - (1998) 73 ALJR 140; 159 ALR 108
Ex parte Enrobook Pty Ltd - (1996) 142 ALR 87
Riley McKay Pty Ltd v McKay - [1982] 1 NSWLR 264
Robinson v Pickering - (1881) 16 Ch D 660
SCF Co Finance Ltd v Masri - [1985] 1 WLR 876; [1985] 2 All ER 747
Seaward v Paterson - [1897] 1 Ch 545
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL - [1982] QB 558
See Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd - (1986) 12 FCR 267
Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp - 309 US 390 (1940)
Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera SA - [1979] AC 210
South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij "De Zeven Provincien" NV - [1987] AC 24
TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra - [1992] 1 WLR 231; [1992] 2 All ER 245
Tait v The Queen - (1962) 108 CLR 620
Ex parte Australian Builders' Labourers' Federation - (1957) 100 CLR 277
Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA - [1979] 3 WLR 122; [1979] 2 All ER 972
Thomson Australian Holdings Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission - (1981) 148 CLR 150
United States v Village of Airmont - 839 F Supp 1054 (1993)
Vereker v Choi - (1985) 4 NSWLR 277
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer - (1995) 182 CLR 544
Winter v Marac Australia Ltd - (1986) 6 NSWLR 11
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL - [1982] QB 558
re Symon: Public Trustee v Symon - [1944] SASR 102
Judgment date: 6 May 1999
Orders
[73] The appeal should be allowed.
[74] O4 of the orders made by the Full Court on 22 August 1997 and each order 1 of the several orders made by Emmett J on 22 and 26 August 1997 should be set aside. However, the operation of the orders of this Court should be suspended for 14 days to allow for the making of orders by a judge of the Federal Court to come into operation at the end of that period of suspension. The reason for this procedure appears below.
[75] The draft form of order, propounded for this contingency by LED, is, with some significant adaptations, the form of order that should be made on application by LED to a judge of the Federal Court. The order should be made by the Federal Court, upon remitter by this Court and provision of the necessary undertakings. Any variation or enforcement of the order will then be a matter for the Federal Court. The order is as follows:
- 1.
- Upon the applicant [LED Builders Pty Ltd] by its counsel giving to the Court the usual undertakings as to damages order that:
- (a)
- Ultra Modern Developments Pty Ltd ["Ultra Modern"] by itself, its directors, officers, employees, agents or otherwise be restrained until further order from disposing of, encumbering or otherwise dealing with in any way the business name "Eagle Homes";
- (b)
- Paul Cardile and Lucy Cardile each be restrained until further order from disposing of or dealing with in any way any of their money, property or other assets whether in their own names or not and whether solely or jointly owned up to the value of $1,058,977.12, other than for the following purposes:
- (i)
- to enable them to pay and to continue to pay the reasonable legal expenses of defending these proceedings and any appeal therefrom;
- (ii)
- to protect the copyright of Eagle Homes Pty Ltd ["Eagle Homes"] or Ultra Modern in their housing plans (other than plans relating to these proceedings) by the commencement and prosecution of proceedings against infringement of the same;
- (iii)
- to commence and prosecute any other bona fide proceedings which Eagle Homes or Ultra Modern may be advised to bring;
- (iv)
- to defend any other proceedings that may be brought against Eagle Homes or Ultra Modern;
- (v)
- to meet their taxation liabilities and those of Eagle Homes or Ultra Modern;
- (vi)
- to comply with the statutory requirements to which they, Eagle Homes or Ultra Modern are subject;
- (vii)
- to meet their normal accountancy fees and those of Eagle Homes or Ultra Modern;
- (viii)
- to pay ordinary and proper business expenses bona fide incurred by them or by Ultra Modern or Eagle Homes; and
- (ix)
- to pay their ordinary living expenses.
- 2.
- Leave be granted to the parties to re-list the proceedings on two days' notice.
[76] The relief given by the above order would be interlocutory, not final, in nature. As we have indicated, if not earlier then certainly upon delivery of judgment upon the account of profits and depending upon the outcome and tenor of the judgment, the appellants may move the Federal Court to dissolve or to vary the interlocutory relief by provisions including the imposition of a time constraint upon the institution in a court of competent jurisdiction of an action under s37A of the Conveyancing Act against the personal appellants and specifying the circumstances in which the order will cease to operate. The liberty to apply might subsequently be utilised in the Federal Court to seek the variation or release of the asset preservation order in circumstances which by then have appeared. These circumstances would include the determination of the s37A application by the court seized of the matter, or the reaching by that court at an interlocutory stage of the conclusion that the s37A application had prospects of success which were so weak as to merit the personal appellants moving the Federal Court to vary or discharge the asset preservation order.
[77] Both parties have had a measure of success in this appeal. We would therefore make no order for costs in the proceedings in this Court. But we would substitute for the costs order made in the Full Court an order that each party bear its, his and her own costs of the proceedings on appeal in the Full Court.