This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 4: Evidence
Federal Court of Australia [2025]: Scidera, Inc. v Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, [2025] FCA 308
Date of judgment: April 7, 2025
Issuing authority: Federal Court of Australia
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)
Plaintiff: Scidera, Inc
Defendant: Meat and Livestock Australia Limited
Keywords: Practice and procedure, Application to strike out statement of claim, Whether pleading or parts of the pleading are ambiguous, likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay, or fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action, Whether the pleading fails to comply with the Federal Court Rules
Basic facts: This case involved the role of pleadings in litigation and involved an application to strike out pleadings.
Held: The judge cited a previous decision of the Full Court, which explained that whether a pleading adequately raises a claim or defense is not a question of style or of phrasing or structure. The sole objective is to identify clearly the matters in dispute and difference by and between the parties to the dispute. This necessarily involves expressing the factual basis of each claim or defense, but it is not necessary to plead the legal conclusions that follow from the facts, although it is often convenient to do so. This requirement to ensure clarity in the case to be met is a basic requirement of procedural fairness.
The role of pleadings has changed with the introduction of case management techniques and pre-trial directions to avoid surprise or ambush at trial. This means that the court does not take an unduly technical or restrictive approach. It does not have to be “an elegant model of legal purity”. Further, the Rules of Court set out that the overarching purpose of civil practice and procedure is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as efficiently as possible.
The judge also took into account the litigation history between the parties when considering whether the case was sufficiently clear on the pleadings, as well as the level of sophistication of the parties and their lawyers. It is also common, and permissible, to plead in the alternative. The judge said that there were combinations and permutations in the pleading, but they were finite and identifiable and “can be understood with relative ease when read with an eye attuned to clarity and simplicity”.
Relevant holdings in relation to evidence: Pleadings must set out the case to be read with clarity.
Relevant legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); Patents Act 1990 (Cth); Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth); Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)