[2002] FCAFC 157
APPEAL – nature of and approach to appeals in Federal Court – consideration of what constitutes ground of appeal – whether appropriate for parties to invite Court to re-hear matter ab initio – appeal is by way of re-hearing not trial de novo – task of appellate court is correction of error at first instance – need for parties to clearly demonstrate error – conclusions of trial judge given appropriate weight in determining whether error has been made
EVIDENCE – whether evidence is excludable where trial judge has taken it into consideration when objection not taken at first instance – expert evidence – admissibility of expert evidence – distinction between admissibility and ultimate weight – role of expert evidence in Federal Court hearings – whether marketing is considered an area of expertise – whether expert can give evidence on matters of common experience – where party failed to cross-examine expert witness on evidence and subsequently raised objection to it on appeal
TORT – passing off – characteristics of a valid cause of action – action designed to protect trader’s goodwill – whether requirement for actual, subjective intention to mislead – only likelihood of confusion of prospective purchaser need be proven – totality of the conduct of alleged deceiver to be considered – whether get-up distinctive of respondent’s product – whether appellant’s get-up would lead potential purchasers to believe appellant’s product was associated with the respondent – role of `gestalt’ in determining passing off – whether deliberate copying of rival’s get-up – whether get-up designed to “sail as close as possible to the wind” – where identical shades of blue, silver and red and diagonal thrust are features of both products’ get-up
TORT – joint tortfeasor – whether managing director procured or directed tort by corporation – where managing director not a `one man company’
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – designed to protect consumers- whether conduct was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive – whether managing director knowingly concerned in misleading and deceptive conduct of corporation when closely, as distinct from, remotely associated with conduct – whether injunctive relief can be sought against managing director of infringing corporation
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 56, 57, 76, 79, 80, 135, 142