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 |
|
|
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