Articles & Cases

Newspaper Articles

Name row slows PerfectOffice, PC Week, December 21, 1994

A Federal Court injunction was granted, after a small Sydney-based software developer, Perfect Computer Consultants, petitioned the court to protect the trademark of its Perfect Office accounting package.
Under the terms imposed by Justice Lindgren, Novell is banned from any form of sale, distribution, promotion, advertising, press statement or marketing of PerfectOffice that does not prominently display a disclamer pointing out the difference between Perfect Office and Novell’s PerfectOffice.It was banned from any promotion of the product to solicitors.

“Novell has not taken us seriously until now,” said perfect Computer’s solicitor Stephen Webster, of the law firm Websters.
“The ultimate relief we’re seeking is that they don’t use our name, ever, anywhere in Australia.”
While Australasia’s managing director, Graeme Inchley, told PC Week that Novell was considering changing the name of the product to ‘Novell PerfectOffice’, the injunction also applies to any product with a name “deceptively similar” to or “only colourably different” from Perfect Office.

Website alleges chocolate drive was road to ruin, The Australian Financial Review, June 16, 2000

A bitter legal dispute between the multinational food corporation Nestle and a small firm, PacMark, might have been settled quietly – except for the website.
PacMark, a small supplier of fund-raising chocolates to schools, reached the end of its litigation budget and agreed to settlement, but not before it laid out its view of the dispute on its website at www.pacmark.com.au. The two companies had been in a legal battle which had raged for more than 18 months, as Nestle refuted allegations that its actions had ruined PacMark, along with more than 20 small companies in PacMark’s distribution chain.
These small companies had based their businesses on PacMark’s ability to distribute chocolates from Nestle. PacMark, in turn, had agreements from Nestle to supply chocolates to the schools on the day requested.
PacMark’s lawyer, Mr Stephen Webster from Websters said: “PacMark contended that Nestle breached Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act by misleading and deceiving PacMark in relation to delivering on time and in proper quantities.” Prompt delivery was crucial, as there was only a short marketing window around Easter for fund raising chocolates. Furthermore, it was claimed that due to poor quality they all had to be returned and replaced.
“By then, “ he said, “the damage was done”. Many of these consultants which were downstream distributors could not do business again in their area as they lost reputation and thus they could no longer stay in this line of business.
The packaging also slipped under Nestle quality control. When these boxes were lifted, the bases tore and dropped chocolates over children’s feet. Schools were taping up the boxes until they discovered that, if the bottoms held up, the handles would tear off. At this point Nestle started providing plastic bags to hold the boxes.

Grocon pressed for tower rent, The Australian Financial Review, March 4, 1999

A legal row is brewing between the Grollo family’s Grocon building group and 1980’s property entrepreneur over alleged non-payment of rent at a Sydney building adjoining the Grocon-built 400 George Street tower.
The multimillion-dollar building company may be presumed insolvent if it does not comply with the demand to pay rent on three levels of apartments adjoining the 400 George Street tower, said Mr Grose. Mr Grose, who is acting for the head lesee of the three floors in the 121 King Street building, alleges the Melbourne-based builder has failed to pay rent it owes for the 12 months to February, 2000 under a three-year lease term commenced in February, 1997.
“We are going the whole hog”. Solicitor, Mr Stephen Webster of Sydney law firm Websters, who is acting for Mr Grose said yesterday: “Grocon has been served with a notice under section 459 of the Corporations Act, for amounts owing under a lease agreement.
“It hasn’t been filed with the courts, but if they don’t pay within 21 days or move to set aside the notice they are deemed to be insolvent. We would then move to appoint a liquidator”.

Leyland brothers deny TV allegations, The Newcastle Herald, January 23, 1993

The two couples have issued a joint statement in response to a range of allegations made on the program relating to the failed Leyland Brothers World theme park near Karuah. The statement was prepared with the close legal advice of a Sydney law firm, Websters, which has been asked by Leylands to prepare a defamation action against A Current Affair and a number of individuals.
The statement read in part: “We Malcolm Leyland and Laraine Leyland, Michael Leyland and Margaret Leyland absolutely and unequivocally in the strongest possible way deny the allegations contained in the programme aired on A Current Affair on Monday night 18th January 1993. We say that in our opinion the programme contained information which was inaccurate, offensive and reflects detrimentally on each of our good name and reputation built up over many years and as such we and our legal advisers are currently considering commencing legal action in respect of the publication by the TV station of the material. All of us Mike, Mal, Laraine and Margaret would like the Australian public to know that we are proud of our achievements and deny the alleged wrong doings expressly or by imputation stated in the above programme.”
The Sydney solicitor acting for the two couples, Mr Stephen Webster, of Websters, said the formal claim would seek a trial before a jury of four people. The Commonwelath Bank was criticised as main creditor for appointing a receiver-manager after the families had missed only one loan repayment.