Stack, George v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 273

Stack, George v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 273

The application as brought is not properly an appeal under s 69(7) of the Patents Act against refusal of extension; rather, judicial review of the costs order is appropriate. Leave is given to file such an application and related matters to be heard together; costs of and incidental to motions to abide the respective outcomes and be parties' costs in each proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal (procedural) / Interlocutory Orders Regarding Leave to File, Joinder, and Costs
Outcome
Respondents' motion dismissed. Leave given to applicant to file for judicial review of costs award. Applications to be heard together. Parties to bear their own costs in each proceeding.
Legal Topics
['patents Extension of Term' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions' 'appeal Rights Under Patents Act' 'costs Orders']
['intellectual Property Law' 'administrative Law'] ['patents Extension of Term' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions' 'appeal Rights Under Patents Act' 'costs Orders']

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

Judicial Review / Appeal (procedural) / Interlocutory Orders Regarding Leave to File, Joinder, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a costs award by the Deputy Commissioner of Patents is appealable under s 69(7) of the Patents Act 1990' 'Whether judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 is available regarding the costs determination' 'Whether the proceedings as brought are correctly constituted as an appeal against refusal of extension of patent term, or require separate review applications']

Ratio Decidendi

The application as brought is not properly an appeal under s 69(7) of the Patents Act against refusal of extension; rather, judicial review of the costs order is appropriate. Leave is given to file such an application and related matters to be heard together; costs of and incidental to motions to abide the respective outcomes and be parties' costs in each proceeding.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion dismissed. Leave given to applicant to file for judicial review of costs award. Applications to be heard together. Parties to bear their own costs in each proceeding.

Orders

  • ["Respondents' motion dismissed." "Applicant has leave to file for judicial review of Deputy Commissioner's 5 January 1996 costs determination by 26 April 1996." 'This application, the judicial review application, and application in QG 29 of 1996 to be heard together.' "Costs be the parties' costs in each of the...