By E-mail & mail
Miss Liz Manos,
Principal Legal Officer,
Legal Practitioners Conduct Board,
Level 3, 33 Franklin Street,
Adelaide, SA 5000
8 September 2010
Dear Liz,
Complaint against the solicitors, Mr. Tony Abbott and Mr. Timothy Magarey, and
counsels, Mr. Ian Robertson and Miss Anne Barnett for Breach of Duty in the
court case SAD 17 0f 2007
(Australian Medic-care Co Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd)
On 24 June 2010 I made complaints about the misconduct of the solicitors in the court
case SAD 17 of 2007. They were creation of the issue of breach of confidence, refusal to settle
this issue on 17 December 2008 without seeking client’s views, failure to settle and defend this
issue properly, counsels’ failure to respond to the submissions of Hamilton regarding breach of
copyright so that AMC was deprived of any damages due to negligence or other reasons,
frequent unavailability of the senior counsel, Mr. Ian Robertson, to look after the case and
failure of counsels and solicitors to answer queries from AMC.
On 3 August 2010 I attended the hearing about adjudication/taxation on the invoices
from Piper-Alderman, I gave my submissions to Judge Lunn in the Supreme Court (Document 3).
The judge issued an order asking me to sue Piper-Alderman for Breach of Duty (Document 4).
Therefore, I would like to make further elaboration on my previous letter sent you on 24 June
2010. In addition, I wish to add a new complaint of Breach of Duty against both counsels and
solicitors in this case. The 10 issues concerning this new complaint were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Breach of Confidence
Nominal Damages for Parallel Import
Nominal Damages awarded from Failure to Supply by Hamilton
Report of Mr. Wong, expert on parallel import, was not accepted by the court.
Passing off Claim
Copyright Claim (Document 5)
AMC had to pay costs related to damages as a result of lawyers’ default
Costs Submissions of Hamilton (Document 6)
29 July 1999 Letter (Documents 7 & 9)
Leave to amend the reply (Document 8)
Except for the issue of breach of confidence, which was narrated and discussed in my
letter dated 24 June 2010 and during the meeting with Mr. Cudmore on 3 August 2010, a brief
explanation of each of the other items was given after this letter, followed by the comments
from the judge in the verdicts dated 30 October 2009 and 14 December 2009 or from the
lawyers of the opposite side so that your board can assess how and why the breach of duty
arose during the management of this court case by the lawyers concerned. A lot of procedures
were left unattended although the lawyers had known their significance. Most of the faults or
deficiencies could be or were recognized by lawyers and remedies could be given before the trial
of this case. However, these were not done nor I was informed about their effects or significance
in advance.
For some issues we can argue that the faults can only be recognized by hind-sight.
However, the need of cross-examination in the issue of breach of confidence, the inadmissibility
of the expert report, the failure to respond to the submissions of Hamilton in the Passing off and
Copyright Claims leading to the resulting consequences, the false letter and the late application
of leave to amend the reply should have been known to counsels before the trial or the
compilation of the written submissions or reply to Hamilton’s submissions. Counsels should
know the need of cross-examination in the proper direction in the issue of breach of confidence,
the false letter and the leave to amend the reply before they submitted that Dr Keung, the Crossrespondent, believed that the formula and manufacturing method were not confidential, gave
the conclusion of “mocking up the letter” and applied for leave to amend the reply.
It appears that much damage was done by our lawyers in the court case with Hamilton,
leading to nominal or zero damages for those issues AMC had won, an account of profits and
costs for the issue of breach of confidence created by the lawyers and finally the costs related to
quantum due to the inadmissibility of the experts’ reports. It is unbelievable that this court case
was supervised by a senior counsel, Mr. Ian Robertson, and a senior solicitor, Mr. Tony Abbott. I
shall be most grateful if you can investigate the above ten issues concerning breach of duty to
reveal the truth and maintain the transparency in the legal profession so that public interest as
well as justice can be safeguarded. It is hard for me to compress all the related evidence or
information in a few pages. If further evidence is required please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanking you very much in anticipation and looking forward to your response soon,
Yours Sincerely,
Kenneth Kin Wah KEUNG
Australian Medic-care Co Ltd
1. Breach of Confidence
During the discovery in the court case, the solicitors not only discovered the formula and
method of manufacture of AMC unnecessarily, but also the confidentiality agreement
signed between Sphere and AMC on which it was clearly printed that formula, knowhow, etc. were confidential. (Document 1)
As stated in the letter sent to your board on 24 June 2010, the use of experts or the
need of my cross-examination in this issue was recognized but these procedures were
not planned or executed, leading to unfavourable judgment as reflected in the verdict.
2. Nominal damages for Parallel Import
Para 412, 414 & 415 in the verdict explained why AMC did not get minimal damages
from Parallel Import. The forensic accountant did not even calculate the direct damages
arising from the actual sales of parallel imported products. In addition, AMC has not
proved it has suffered substantial damages as a result of parallel import.
Significantly no particularised claim is propounded for loss from parallel
importation in the 2001-2002 financial year. This is of particular present importance.
Hamilton, as I have found, was responsible only for the two sales of U50g made in
November and December 2001. Those sales were received by Forward Co on 11
December 2001 and 12 January 2002. The 2002 financial year ended on 31 March 2002.
While the subsequent sales of the U50g in the retail market may have created the risk of
loss of sales and, therefore, of injury to AMC for a period, I cannot on the evidence before
me infer that that injury was in fact caused or over any particular period. As is evident
from the Jorgensen report, AMC has not attempted to prove its consequential loss of
profits in its parallel importation case in so particular a way. Nor has any particularised
claim at all been made for loss in the period prior to 1 April 2003. Given both the very
limited responsibility, if any, Hamilton has for such loss as AMC may have suffered by
way of run down of sales and the evidentiary silence, I am not prepared to speculate as
to the actual loss, if any, AMC may have suffered on the sale of the 9448 U50g units.
That loss has not been proved. To the extent that AMC suffered significant loss from the
parallel importation of Hamilton products – if it did at all – it was primarily the author of
its own harm and probably exclusively so by the beginning of the 2003 financial year.
412
413
I will reject its claim for damages for consequential loss of profits.
CONCLUSION
Having concluded that AMC has not proved it has suffered substantial damages
as a result of Hamilton’s breach of cl 6.2 of the Distribution Agreement, I will award
nominal damages for that breach of $100.
414
My conclusion has relieved me of the need to consider a significant body of
evidence, expert and otherwise, and very detailed submissions from Hamilton in
415
particular on AMC’s alleged loss of profits. I make no comment on that material beyond
what has already been said.
3. Nominal Damages awarded from Failure to Supply by Hamilton
AMC did not get any damages from the sudden cessation to supply goods to AMC by Hamilton
due to failure of the latter to prove its claimed losses of profits. I do not understand why our
lawyers or forensic accountant, Mr. Jorgensen, did not notice the need to prove the losses as
pointed out in the following paragraphs from the verdict.
458
AMC is entitled to nominal damages of $10 for each of Hamilton’s two breaches
of its obligation to supply.
CONCLUSION ON THE CONTRACT CLAIMS
459
I have found that:
(i)
Hamilton was in breach of cl 6.2 (the “best efforts” clause) but AMC was entitled
to nominal damages its claimed losses of profits not having been proved;
(ii)
Hamilton was in breach of cl 11.1 in consequence of its refusal to supply Products
ordered on 9 May and 5 July 2006 but that AMC was entitled only to nominal
damages for each breach because it failed to mitigate its losses; and
(iii)
the Distribution Agreement having been terminated lawfully on 13 September
2006 under cl 41.1.6, AMC’s claim for damages for Hamilton’s alleged
repudiatory termination of the Distribution Agreement must be rejected.
4. Report of Mr. Wong, expert on parallel import, was not accepted by the
court.
The expert report on parallel import written by Mr. Wong was ruled inadmissible. I do
not know why its inadmissibility could not be predicted by our lawyers or counsels and
remedies made before the trial. I was not informed of this potential inadmissibility
before the trial. In fact, I sent to counsels and Tim Magarey some papers on parallel
import from Professor Lui, the other expert witness in this court case, who had
promised to give expert opinion on this topic. However, this idea of hiring Professor Lui
on this aspect was not accepted by our lawyers. The following were the comments on
the report of Mr. Wong in the verdict.
REASONS FOR A RULING ON EVIDENCE
687
On 4 September 2008 I ruled inadmissible the report of Derek Wong, which was
being put forward by AMC as an expert’s report. In substance, the report was just over
two pages in length and consisted of 19 answers to two sets of questions provided to Mr
Wong in two letters of instruction. It traversed a range of subjects which could be
described, flatteringly, as general evidence about the structure and nature of the
pharmaceutical industry in Hong Kong as Asia; methods of advertising of pharmaceutical
products within the industry; the effect of parallel importation; Australia’s certification
of pharmaceuticals etc; and sales growth rates within Hong Kong and China. The
answers were in the main ex cathedra statements, often essentially factual in character.
To the extent that opinions were expressed they were generally devoid of factual
foundation or of any declared process of reasoning. While Mr Wong had over twenty
years experience in the pharmaceutical industry primarily in the sales, marketing and
production of pharmaceuticals, his curriculum vitae provides no significant basis for
inferring that he was possessed of specialised knowledge based on his training, study or
experience, that would qualify him to give opinion evidence on the various topics I have
mentioned: see Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 79. On the contrary, his opinions on parallel
importation, for example, and his references to it in his C.V., suggest reliance on
anecdotes and speculative generalisation.
Mr Wong’s report was due originally in January 2008. Extensions were given and
it was provided to Hamilton in April. The substance of the objections made to it – which
related to the central elements of the report and in particular to parallel importation, the
10% urea cream market and sales rates of growth – were notified on 30 May 2008.
688
Confronted with well taken objections to the report, AMC sought either to put on
a further report to remedy the deficiencies of the present document or to have an oral
report given.
689
I ruled that I would not permit an oral report to be given. It would be inherently
unfair given the agreed basis upon which the trial had been conducted in relation to
expert evidence – ie of a written expert’s report that could be considered and responsed
to by the opposing party. As to permitting a supplementary report to be prepared, I was
not prepared to allow this given the point already reached in the trial. What would have
been required was an elaboration of virtually each and every paragraph but in
circumstances where I entertain considerable doubts as to Mr Wong’s expertise to
venture the opinions that would be necessary to rescue the report.
690
In these circumstances, and as the report as it stood was not one upon which
AMC could properly be asked to conduct a cross-examination, I ruled it inadmissible.
691
5. Passing off Claim
As indicated in Paragraphs 615 – 617 in the verdict, our counsels did not make replies to
many responses from the lawyers of Hamilton although they had started or made the
claims for AMC all along. I do not think that counsels did not know the need to reply.
615
As I have already indicated, AMC has no cause of action for passing off in
Australia.
616
While the respondent has raised a considerable number of, often complex,
responses to AMC’s claim, they have not been addressed by AMC. I do not
consider it necessary to deal with the respondent’s further submissions.
617
I reject the passing off claim.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6. Copyright Claim
AMC was not awarded any damages with regard to the breach of copyright. On
15 November 2008 I sent the photographs of Urederm 25gm to Tim Magarey by E-mail.
They were bought by me at Athens with the English indications printed on the tube and
the box (Document 5). I asked Tim to correct the submissions going to be filed five days
later. This version sold at Athens shows the actionable wrong to AMC mentioned in
Paragraph 586 in the verdict. I do not know if the solicitors discovered this important
piece of document to the opposite side and informed counsels after receipt of these Emails. Anyway, failure of counsels to mention it in the submissions filed on 20
November 2008 has deprived AMC’s entitlement to compensation from this issue,
leading to zero damages and a further reason why AMC has to pay costs related to
damages or quantum as revealed in the following paragraphs from the verdict.
586.
In the circumstances I am in no position to find that when Hamilton
reproduced the Urederm labels on its packaging it did so otherwise than in
accordance with Dr Keung’s licence. Its later conduct in effecting sales of such
product may have been an actionable wrong to AMC. It was not the wrong
pleaded against Hamilton.
587.
I reject AMC’s breach of copyright claim.
In addition to the above E-mails about copyright, Document 868 discovered by
Hamilton on 30 May 2008 has been mentioned many times to solicitors and counsels
since that date. It showed the number of units of Urederm 25gm tube, the infringing
product, sent to Cyprus and Greece, about 20,000 to 30,000 units yearly for Cyprus since
2000 and some U50 to Greece. We could count those from August 2002 as infringing the
copyright according to Para 586 in the judgment if our lawyers did note the E-mail I sent
them on 15 November 2008, just before we completed the written submissions, and
added this into the submissions in November 2008 or the oral submissions in February
2009. If we could get some damages instead of nominal ones there would be no costs
submissions required and no costs related to damages might be needed to be paid.
7. AMC had to pay costs related to damages as a result of lawyers’
default (Document 2)
According to the judge AMC needed to pay costs related to the issue of the damages claimed by
AMC because the report of the forensic accountant, Mr. Jorgensen, did not show the damages
from parallel import and the figures were inflated.
AMC needs to pay costs on quantum as a result of the Jorgensen and the Wong report as
reflected in Para 39 of the Reasons for Judgment dated 14 December 2009 (Document 2) and in
Para 687 of the verdict respectively.
Our forensic account did not even list out the damages for parallel import. Therefore, the judge
did not grant any damages to AMC even the latter had won this issue.
Comment from the judge in Para 39 of the Reasons for Judgment dated 14 December 2009
(Document 2)
39. The one specific issue I would except from the above relates to the issue of the damages
claimed by AMC. Not only was AMC unsuccessful in its various claims, the quantum of relief
sought for its principal claims can properly be considered to be improbable at best. Hamilton
is entitled to be paid its costs on that issue in AMC's proceeding on a party and party basis.
687. On 4 September 2008 I ruled inadmissible the report of Derek Wong, which was being put forward by
AMC as an expert’s report. In substance, the report was just over two pages in length and consisted of 19
answers to two sets of questions provided to Mr Wong in two letters of instruction. It traversed a range of
subjects which could be described, flatteringly, as general evidence about the structure and nature of the
pharmaceutical industry in Hong Kong as Asia; methods of advertising of pharmaceutical products within the
industry; the effect of parallel importation; Australia’s certification of pharmaceuticals etc; and sales growth
rates within Hong Kong and China. The answers were in the main ex cathedra statements, often essentially
factual in character. To the extent that opinions were expressed they were generally devoid of factual foundation
or of any declared process of reasoning. While Mr Wong had over twenty years experience in the pharmaceutical
industry primarily in the sales, marketing and production of pharmaceuticals, his curriculum vitae provides no
significant basis for inferring that he was possessed of specialised knowledge based on his training, study or
experience, that would qualify him to give opinion evidence on the various topics I have mentioned: see Evidence
Act 1995 (Cth), s 79. On the contrary, his opinions on parallel importation, for example, and his references to it in
his C.V., suggest reliance on anecdotes and speculative generalisation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Costs Submissions of Hamilton (Document 6)
After the judgment declared on 30 October 2009, Hamilton applied to the court for indemnity
costs through their submissions. The following was presented as one of the reasons. I did not
know that our counsels failed to defend many of our claims until I read the following paragraphs
in the costs submissions of Hamilton.
In Para 7.8
Eight of 10 of AMC’s claims were dismissed. Certain claims were hopeless,
to the point that no attempt was made (in AMC’s submissions in reply) to respond to the
submissions on behalf of Hamilton:7.8.1 breach of copyright (Reasons for Judgment. [577]-[586]);
7.8.2 misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the supply of Products
(Reasons for Judgment, [591]-[605])
7.8.3 passing-off (Reasons for Judgment, [606]-[617]);
7.9
AMC neither abandoned nor defended its hopeless claims, except conversion,
which was abandoned in closing submissions (Reasons for Judgment, [587][590]);
9. 29 JULY 1999 LETTER (Document 7 & 9)
On 30 August 2006 Hamilton produced a letter dated 29 July 1999 for the first time (Document
5). It served to explain the trademark issue. It had never been received by AMC. This was not
mentioned in the years of argumentation about the ownership of trademarks after the
occurrence of parallel import in 2002. I told counsels that this was a false letter and I had never
received it. Our counsel did not attack the writer of the letter or the witness along the line of
perjury based upon the evidence available. Mr. Robertson, a senior counsel representing AMC,
did not destroy the credibility of this witness by directing the cross-examination along the right
track although he knew the letter had been mocked up in 2006. (Document 6) Instead the other
side had the chance to attack me on denying receipt of this letter and accused me of lying.
In the written submission of Hamilton dated 20 December 2009, Hamilton wrote the following
in defending this false letter dated 29 July 1999.
1.
The Court must reject the evidence of Dr Keung on this issue. In practical terms,
the applicant’s receipt of the letter was conceded in the cross-examination of Blake
and Ovcharenko. The cross examiner did not put either to Blake or Ovcharenko
the fact that the letter was not sent. That being so, and Ovcharenko having sworn
that it was sent,1 the Court must find that it was sent. The submission of the
applicant that the e-mail was not sent, and that no letter was posted on about 29
July,2 is not open to the applicant given the tenor of its cross-examination of Blake
and Ovcharenko. If the letter was not sent, Dr Ovcharenko has committed perjury.
It was not put to him that he had lied on this topic. More importantly, it was not put
to Ovcharenko that he had knowingly lied on the topic whether or not the letter was
sent.
2.
The applicant’s submission of fact that Ovcharenko or someone else (unidentified)
“mocked up” the letter in 20063 is a most improper submission. The course of the
cross-examination of Ovcharenko precludes the applicant from putting it.
1
2
3
Ovcharenko [143].
Applicant’s Principal Submissions [265, 729, 730].
Applicant’s Principal Submissions [730].
10. LEAVE TO AMEND THE REPLY refused by the judge on
19 December 2008 (Document 8)
This was rejected by Justice Finn since AMC had not cross-examined the witness with
this intention in the long trial but proposed to amend on the last day of an adjourned
trial. The following was taken from the judgment issued on 19 December 2008. Our
counsels should have known the need to void Clause 50.1 of the agreement before the
trial. I do not know why they acted so late as reflected in Paragraph 11 below. The
following is taken from the judgment of the Federal Court dated 19 December 2008 to
reveal the default of the lawyers on our side. (Document 7)
10
The Distribution Agreement which it is alleged was breached by Hamilton is
pleaded as being partly written and partly oral. The principal oral terms, which might be
thought to be inconsistent with express terms, related (a) to what is called the rolling
five year term (see clause 8) and (b) to the operation of the termination provision of the
agreement (see clause 41). Importantly for present purposes clause 50.1 of the
agreement provides:
All negotiations and correspondence between the parties that have taken place prior to
the signing of this Agreement shall be considered null and void as from the day of its
signing.
11
The clause that became clause 50 was proposed by Dr Ovcharenko of Hamilton
by a fax of 27 May 1999 to Dr Keung of AMC. That fax referred both to a proposed clause
providing a bonus offer to AMC and to the addition of two further clauses including the
now clause 50. Both Dr Keung and Dr Ovcharenko were cross-examined on the email
and on the termination provision and it was that cross-examination which has led to the
application for leave to amend. Dr Ovcharenko’s cross-examination, I would note,
occurred on the 26th day of a projected 27 day hearing. For reasons which I need not
enter into, a further day was set aside to complete the giving of evidence. That occurred
yesterday and it was when the issue of leave was raised with me, albeit it had been
flagged I understand to the respondent some time previously.
12
The terms of the proposed amendment insofar as presently relevant and for that
matter the declared purpose sought to be secured by it are as follows:
8.6
Ovcharenko represented to Dr Keung in trade and commerce that the reason
for inserting the proposed clause 52.1 (now clause 50.1 of the Distribution Agreement)
into the Distribution Agreement, was to incorporate a bonus offer in Schedule 5 ("the
clause 50 representation").
Particulars
8.6.1 Facsimile from Dimitri Ovcharenko dated 27 May 1999.
8.7
AMC was induced by the clause 50 representation to agree
to the incorporation of clause 50.1 into the Distribution Agreement
to secure the bonus offer.
8.8
the clause 50 representation was false in that:
8.8.1 the true purpose for the incorporation of clause 50.1 was to purport
to exclude the operation of the clause 8 representation and clause 41
representation;
8.8.2 Hamilton now relies on clause 50.1 to assert that the terms of the
Distribution Agreement are wholly written.
8.9
by reason of the conduct referred to in paragraphs 8.6 to 8.8, inclusive,
Hamilton has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of
s.52 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974;
8.10 seeks an order pursuant to s.87(1) and (2)(a) or (2)(ba) of the Trade
Practices Act declaring clause 50.1 to be void or refusing to enforce clause 50.1 to
exclude the operation of the clause 8 representation and clause 41 representation.
13
It is AMC’s contention that the significance of the 27 May facsimile only became
apparent when the above cross-examination occurred and it relies primarily upon the
evidence given in cross-examination as substantiating the claim it now seeks to bring
albeit by way of defence.
14
The respondent opposes the amendment on the grounds that to allow it at this
stage would be unfair and prejudicial to it. It does not, and could not, dispute that there
was cross-examination on the facsimile and on the termination provisions. What it does
contend is that that cross-examination was not conducted with a focus upon a pleaded and
precise cause of action with the consequence that the evidence adduced and the manner
of its adducing did not have the ingredients of a Trade Practices Act claim in mind.
15
It is well accepted that the aim of the court’s power to amend under O 13 r 2 of
the Federal Court Rules is to allow all the issues which arise in a proceeding to be
determined and for a decision to be given on the real matter in controversy. Hence it has
been emphasised that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if it not be unjust to do
so: see Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd v Finishing Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 219 at [122]. The
imperative in favour of amendment has been long accepted and is illustrated, for example,
in the observations of Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ in Leotta v Public Transport
Commission (NSW) (1976) 9 ALR 437 at 446 where their Honours said:
If in the cause of action upon which the plaintiff sued there had emerged at the
conclusion of the evidence facts which, if accepted, established that cause of action, then
it was the duty of the trial judge to leave the issue of negligence to the jury. The
pleadings should have been amended in order to make the facts alleged and the
particulars of negligence precisely conform to the evidence which had emerged ... Now,
and for many years past, a plaintiff does not fail by being refused leave to amend or
through failure formally to apply for amendment, where the evidence has disclosed a case
in the cause of action fit to be determined by the tribunal of fact. Particularly is this so
when the action finally determines the rights of the parties in the cause of action.
16 Turning to the present matter, it cannot properly be said that the case has been
conducted in such a fashion that the amendments should be permitted so that the pleading
reflects the conduct of the trial and the issues actually litigated between them.
Nonetheless, AMC contends that the relevant evidence establishing the proposed
defensive claim is there and is manifest in the cross-examination on that issue to which I
have made reference. Accordingly it is said the amendment should be allowed although it
is accepted that it may be necessary to permit the respondent to cross-examine further on
the proposed claim and its ingredients.
17
While I am satisfied that the particular claim proposed only presented itself during
the course of the trial, it is the case that the potential significance of clause 50 was
obvious from the outset. Given the course of this proceedings and its considerable
lengthening, that the applicant had closed its case and the respondents had called their
last witness and that the timetable for submissions etc has been fixed and cannot be
varied without a considerably longer delay to the finalisation of this matter, I am
unprepared to take a course that would permit further cross-examination and, hence,
further delay.
18
It may well be the case that the cross-examination that has been conducted of the
two witnesses so far as it goes is suggestive of a possible contravention of s 52 of the
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that the evidence that has
so far been adduced could properly be said to establish that contravention such that relief
under s 87 could be claimed. I equally am satisfied of the real likelihood that the crossexamination of Dr Keung by Hamilton would have been conducted differently especially
in relation (a) to the questions of inducement and (b) to Dr Keung’s understanding of Dr
Ovcharenko’s alleged reason for inserting the proposed equivalent of clause 50.1 if it had
been conducted with the proposed claim in mind. I equally consider it likely that
evidence-in-chief given by Dr Ovcharenko in light of a pleaded s 52 claim could well
have been differently focussed. In short I accept Hamilton’s submission of prejudice
which in the circumstances in my view is not able to be remedied. Accordingly, I refuse
leave to amend the reply.
19
However, there is a further proposed amendment to the reply which is not
opposed and I will grant leave in respect of it.
Documents enclosed
1.
Confidentiality Agreement with Sphere Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd showing
that formula, know-how, etc. were confidential. Tony said that he did not know
that the formula and manufacturing method were confidential although this
agreement had been discovered and should have been read by Mr Magarey or
Tony before the discovery.
2.
Court Order dated 14 December 2009
3.
The submissions of AMC to the Supreme Court during the preliminary
assessment on adjudication/taxation on 3 August 2010. The annexures such as
the deed of release, draft terms of engagement and the Questions for Counsels
have been sent to your committee by attaching to the letter dated 24 June 2010.
4.
Record of Outcome from the Supreme Court dated 3 August 2010. Judge
Lunn asked me to get a lawyer to sue Piper-Alderman for breach of duty
5.
E-mail sent to Tim Magarey and Tony Abbott on 15 November 2008 with
attachments showing photos of Urederm 25gm tube sold at Athens. They bore
my copyright and I asked them to correct the submissions to be filed on 20
November 2008.
6.
Abstract from Costs Submissions of Hamilton dated 18 November 2009
7.
29 July 1999 Letter
8.
Reasons of Judgment dated 19 December 2008 concerning the issue of
leave to amend the reply from Paragraph 10 onwards
9.
Paragraphs 725 to 731 from the written submissions of AMC filed with
the court on 20 November 2008, showing the reasons why the letter in Item 7
was said to be mocked up but the writer of the letter, Dr. Ovcharenko, was not
cross-examined along the right track of perjury