FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Vic) [2002] FCA 860

 

 

 


ORION PET PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 638 721) and INNOTEK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 010 408 983) v ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (VICTORIA) INC and HUGH WIRTH

 

Q1 of 2000

 

WEINBERG J

5 JULY 2002

MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q1 of 2000

 

BETWEEN:

ORION PET PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 638 721)

FIRST APPLICANT

 

INNOTEK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 010 408 983)

SECOND APPLICANT

 

AND:

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (VICTORIA) INC

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

HUGH WIRTH

SECOND RESPONDENT

 

AND BETWEEN:

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (VICTORIA) INC

FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

 

HUGH WIRTH

SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

 

AND:

INNOTEK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 010 408 983)

FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENT

 

ANTHONY JOHN HOLLIDAY

SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENT

 

MARY COLLEEN HOLLIDAY

THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENT

 

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE:

5 JULY 2002

PLACE:

MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE)

CORRIGENDUM


Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment of Weinberg J delivered on 5 July 2002.


Paragraph 27 should be deleted and replaced by:


“27.      This application was initially instituted in the Queensland Registry of the Court on 6 January 2000.  It was subsequently transferred to the Victorian Registry.  The statement of claim was amended on 28 September 2000 to include various causes of action arising out of the publication on 1 August 2000 of the Herald Sun article.  For reasons which were never made clear, the applicants did not claim any relief arising out of three other incidents which involved statements about their products which were published prior to the date upon which the amended statement of claim was filed.  However, these comments, though not the subject of any claim in this proceeding, were said to be relevant to the issue of malice, and also to the quantum of damages, if any, to which the applicants were entitled.  There was also a fourth comment upon which the applicants relied in the same way, though that was not made until 3 October 2000.”


In par 28 the following words should be deleted:


“28.        In summary, there were four occasions upon which the respondents were said to have repeated the offending comments.  They were:


·               …”


and replaced by:


“28.        In summary, the four occasions upon which the respondents were said to have made disparaging comments about the applicants’ products in relation to which no specific cause of action was pleaded were:


·               …”


In par 215 the first sentence should read:


“215.    Under cross-examination, Mr Apostolides conceded that, in his affidavit of 11 September 2000, he had not mentioned a number of the matters about which he later gave evidence in-chief.”


I certify this is a true copy of corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Weinberg.



Associate:


Dated:              8 July 2002