Stack, G & Anor v The Brisbane City Council & Ors [1995] FCA 570

Stack, G & Anor v The Brisbane City Council & Ors [1995] FCA 570

The Brisbane City Council was an authority of a State because it was a statutory body whose powers and functions were delegated by State legislation, whose governmental activities were impressed with the stamp of government, and over which the Minister and Governor in Council retained significant control. The use of the water meters was exploitation for the services of that authority because the meters were part of the BCC apparatus for supplying and charging for reticulated water, a local government function. Davies Shephard Pty Ltd was authorised in writing because, on formation of the contract by the BCC letter of acceptance dated 14 February 1994, the contract required supply of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceedings Concerning Australian Petty Patent Number 645740 / Determination of Preliminary Questions Ordered Pursuant to Order 29 Rule 2
Outcome
Preliminary questions answered in favour of the respondents on questions (a) to (d); question (e) declined; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the preliminary questions.
Legal Topics
['crown Exploitation of Patented Inventions' 'authority of a State' 'services of the State' 'written Authorisation to Exploit an Invention' 'preliminary Questions']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'administrative Law' 'local Government'] ['crown Exploitation of Patented Inventions' 'authority of a State' 'services of the State' 'written Authorisation to Exploit an Invention' 'preliminary Questions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Proceedings Concerning Australian Petty Patent Number 645740 / Determination of Preliminary Questions Ordered Pursuant to Order 29 Rule 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Brisbane City Council is an authority of a State within the meaning of Chapter 17 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'Whether exploitation of the invention by the First and/or Second Respondents was for the services of the State within the meaning of s.163 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'Whether the Brisbane City Council authorised in writing Davies Shephard Pty Ltd to exploit the invention within the meaning of s.163 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'From what date any written authorisation was effective.' 'Whether the Brisbane City Council is the relevant authority within Chapter 17 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Brisbane City Council was an authority of a State because it was a statutory body whose powers and functions were delegated by State legislation, whose governmental activities were impressed with the stamp of government, and over which the Minister and Governor in Council retained significant control. The use of the water meters was exploitation for the services of that authority because the meters were part of the BCC apparatus for supplying and charging for reticulated water, a local government function. Davies Shephard Pty Ltd was authorised in writing because, on formation of the contract by the BCC letter of acceptance dated 14 February 1994, the contract required supply of the...

Court Disposition

Preliminary questions answered in favour of the respondents on questions (a) to (d); question (e) declined; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the preliminary questions.

Orders

  • ['Question (a), whether the First Respondent is an authority of a State within the meaning of Chapter 17 of the Patents Act 1990, answered: Yes.' 'Question (b), whether the exploitation of the invention is for the services of the State within the meaning of s.163 of the Act, answered: Yes.' 'Question (c), whether...