The new future of case management? 

The trial of Black & Decker's allegations of patent and design infringement allegations against GMCA was scheduled for 10 April 2007, but was aborted when GMCA needed to file further evidence.

The trial was refixed for 19 November 2007.

Finkelstein J had ordered:

In October, GMCA served two new affidavits ...

and Finkelstein J refused leave to rely on them.

Finkelstein J, describing parties as often paying little more than lip service to Court ordered timetables and pointing his gavel at Queensland v JL Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146, declared:

5 I am of the firm view that parties should not be treated as leniently as they have been in the past. Commercial parties expect this approach from the courts and their expectation should be met. A useful rule to adopt is to allow an extension only if the failure to meet the existing timetable is the result of excusable non-compliance. In deciding whether there is excusable non-compliance the court should take into account, among other factors: (a) the direct and indirect prejudice to the opposing party; (b) the impact of the delay on the proceedings; (c) the reasons for the delay; (d) good faith or lack of good faith on the part of the party seeking to be excused; and (e) the effect of putting off a trial both on other litigants and generally on the court’s ability to efficiently manage its cases.

His Honour pointed out that there are often costs that are not compensated by costs orders:

2 The assumption may be true in some cases. But often it is not true when it comes to commercial parties involved in a commercial dispute. Those parties do incur losses resulting from delay that can never be compensated by a costs order. For one thing the costs are often not capable of being calculated. For another thing the costs are not only directly pecuniary. Take, for example, the cost that results from diversion of management time away from the firm’s business and to the litigation. This should not be, but more often than not is, overlooked. There is also the opportunity cost of a dispute remaining unresolved. Every businessman knows that firms are often inhibited from taking action until the court determines whether the action is lawful. Ultimate success in the dispute will not undo the loss incurred in the past. Finally there is the ever growing discrepancy between the costs recovered pursuant to a costs order and a party’s actual out of pocket expenses. Nowadays the party that obtains a costs order is lucky to get back 50 per cent of its actual costs.

And concluded:

10 The affidavits were filed late because the respondent was unable to get them sworn any earlier. The witnesses are not in the respondent’s camp and the respondent’s lawyers had difficulty getting in touch with them. Still, if leave were granted to permit the respondent to rely on this evidence and amend its particulars of invalidity the trial will have to go off once again. This is an intolerable situation. The applicants are entitled to know now whether or not they have a valid patent and design. It is simply unfair to put off the trial yet again. This action was commenced in October 2005 and should have been completed a long time ago. Putting it off is not only unfair to the applicants, it is also inconvenient for the court. The case has been listed to run for 7-10 days and if it is taken out of the list not only the applicants but other litigants will be prejudiced.

Black & Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623.

I didn't find any information in the Federal Court's website of an appeal having been filed.