Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel [1999] FCA 1399

Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel [1999] FCA 1399

The respondents did not acquire or own eligible industrial property rights within the meaning of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth). The rights conferred by the licence agreements did not amount to rights to do any acts comprised in copyright, nor did they grant exclusivity. Consequently, the claims for grants pursuant to the Act must fail, and the Tribunal’s and primary judge’s decisions were in error as a matter of law.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Trade Commission; First Respondent: Disktravel; Second Respondent: John Gaetano Mario Fiocco; Third Respondent: Divot Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Holden Barlow; Fifth Respondent: Ceck Investments
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Federal Court, on Appeal From a Single Judge
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Export Market Development Grants Act, Copyright, Eligible Industrial Property Rights, Purpose of Expenditure, Appeal Procedure
Administrative Law Intellectual Property Law Export Market Development Grants Act Copyright Eligible Industrial Property Rights Purpose of Expenditure Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Trade Commission

Appellant

Disktravel

First Respondent

John Gaetano Mario Fiocco

Second Respondent

Divot Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Holden Barlow

Fourth Respondent

Ceck Investments

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Federal Court, on Appeal From a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents owned eligible industrial property rights under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the expenditure incurred was 'primarily and principally' for the statutory purpose under s 11Z(8) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether there was an error of law in the Tribunal’s evaluation of the purpose of expenditure

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not acquire or own eligible industrial property rights within the meaning of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth). The rights conferred by the licence agreements did not amount to rights to do any acts comprised in copyright, nor did they grant exclusivity. Consequently, the claims for grants pursuant to the Act must fail, and the Tribunal’s and primary judge’s decisions were in error as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The decision of the learned primary judge of 5 February 1999 be set aside and that of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside in so far as it relates to the respondents to this appeal.