Articles & Cases

Newspaper Articles

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

Perfect Computer Consultants v Novell

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

PacMark v Nestle

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 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

Leyland Brothers

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.

Other Cases and Articles

Quirindi trespass case ends with payout
North Daily Leader
6 July 2012

Willis & Bowring Mortgage Investments v Belramoul
Legal Case Files
6 March 2009

Order for the arrest of lawyer
The Daily Telegraph
26 December 2005

Kailash Centre for Personal Development Inc v Yoga Magik Pty Limited [2003] FCA 536 (30 May 2003)
Lessons from the Law Courts

Excuse Me
FindLaw Australia
6 November 2003

The knock on the door: Liquidators’ search & seizure warrants
Clayton UTZ
24 December 2002

Tax schemes hard sell catches up on Saxby Bridge
The Australian Financial Review
28 May 2001

The Boutique
The Legal Assistant
March 2000

Perfume king kicks up stink
Sunday Herald Sun
6 December 1998

Have claws, will travel
Sydney Morning Herald
21 January 1997

New life wrecked by car smash
The Daily Telegraph
27 April 1989

Hot under the collar
The Sun Herald
23 July 1995

Family fights film moguls
The Sun-Herald
12 December 1993

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd v Bartsch
Federal Court Reporter
30 October 1992

AAA, where the pilot serves tea
The Sydney Morning Herald
23 January 1992

Ron’s dream airline has no planes, no money
12 February 1992

Indonesian Billionaire’s Small Mining Deal Raises Big Questions
The Wall Street Journal
7 August 2015

Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84
Hearing Date: 12 March 2010
Judgement Date: 20 July 2010

Amazon Pest Control Pty Limited
Hearing Date: 7 November 2012
Judgement Date: 14 December 2012

Tara Communications Group Pt Ltd v Simons Ravden Pty Ltd
Hearing Date: 7 July 2012
Judgement Date: 1 August 2012

Mediaquest Communications LLC v Registrar of Trade Marks [2012] FCA 768
Hearing Date: 12 June 2012
Judgement Date: 30 July 2012

Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109
Hearing Date: 21-23 March 2011
Judgement Date: 9 May 2011

Standard Chartered Bank Aust Ltd v Bank of China
Dates: 25 February 1991, 28 February 1991 and 21 March 1999

Lee Rumble & Anor v Liverpool Plains Shire Council & Ors [No. 2] [2012] NSWDC 99
Hearing Date: 22-25 May 2012, 28 May 2012 and 13 July 2012
Judgement Date: 20 July 2012

Ann Spralja and Ann Maree Pilley v Neal Mattson Hamilton
4 June 2011

Shaw v McGee & Anor
Hearing Date: 6-9 June 2011 and 19-20 September 2011
Judgement Date: 7 October 2011

Brighten Pty Limited & Ors v Bank of Western Australia Limited & Anor [2010] NSWSC 133
Hearing Date: 25 February 2010
Judgement Date: 1 March 2010

Kingsway Group Limited (formerly known as Willis & Bowring Mortgage Investments Limited) v Belramoul & Ors [2009] NSWSC 608
Hearing Date: 29 April 2009 – 1 May 2009 and 1 June 2009
Judgement Date: 8 July 2009

Bank of China Ltd v C.G.S (Group) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 397
Hearing Date: 5-6 May 2009
Judgement Date: 18 May 2009

Yuejin Guo v Bank of China Limited [2008] NSWCA 89
Hearing Date: 29 April 2008
Judgement Date: 9 May 2008

House of Diamonds (NSW) Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Lemery Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 868 revised – 9/10/2002
Hearing date: 16-18 September 2002
Judgement Date: 18 September 2002

Sinopharm Jiangsu Co Pty Limited v Bank of China [2007] NSWSC 484
Hearing Date: 4 May 2007
Judgement Date: 4 May 2007

Foster v Lisle [2003) NSWSC 1243
Hearing Date: 3-4 December 2003
Judgement Date: 17 December 2003

Karam v ANZ Banking Group Limited & 1Ors [2003] NSWSC 866
Hearing Date: 19 June 2003
Judgement Date: 22 September 2003

Eric Fairbairn as Executor of the estate of the late William Norman Cooke v William Peter Cooke & 2 Ors
17 April 2003

Kailash Centre for Personal Development Inc & Anor v Yoga Magik Pty Limited & Ors N 20 of 2002
Date of Order: 20 June 2003

Cooke v Fairbairn; Fairbairn v Cooke [2003] NSWSC 232
Hearing Date: 17 March 2003 and 20-23 March 2003
Judgement Date: 14 April 2003

Rimmer v Bourke [2003] NSWSC 200
Hearing Date: 4 March 2003
Judgement Date: 26 March 2003

Andrew Cash & Co Investments Pty Ltd v Porter and Others
14 October 1996

Standard Chartered Bank Aust Ltd v Bank of China
21 March 1991

Bank of China v Standard Chartered Bank Aust Ltd
16 July 1991

Lavin v Toppi [2015] HCA 4
11 February 2015

Dolores Lavin & Dolores Lavin Management Pty Ltd v Paola Toppi, Neil Cunningham and Basecove Pty Ltd
12 September 2014

Lavin v Toppi & Anor [2014] FCCA 1228

Hugh Jenner Wily v Leslie Ross Burton, Urmar Pty Ltd and Locpat Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) No NB 2172 of 1993
Date of Hearing: 22 April 1994

Edward Ted Lakis v Michael Victor Lardis - Amazon Pest Control Pty Limited
12 Dec 2012

Phone: +61 (0) 2 9233 2688 | Level 11/37 Bligh Street Sydney NSW 2000 | GPO Box 482 Sydney NSW 2001 | DX 504 Sydney Facimile: +61 (0) 2 9233 3828 | |

Liability limited by a Scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
ABN: 83 959 312 083