Allanson, Kerstin Ing-Marie v State of Queensland [1998] ACOPYT 2

Allanson, Kerstin Ing-Marie v State of Queensland [1998] ACOPYT 2

The amended application did not comply with reg 33C because it failed to identify the relevant work or the act comprised in the copyright done under s 183(1). Despite repeated directions and further opportunities, the applicant did not provide material that formulated a s 183 claim with sufficient precision, and nothing before the Tribunal suggested that any relevant act had been done for the services of the Commonwealth. As formulated, the claim could not possibly succeed, and it was also defective in form and affected by non-compliance with directions, so the proceeding against the Commonwealth was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 183(5) of the Copyright Act 1968 to Fix Terms for Acts Comprised in Copyright, With Motion for Dismissal / Motion by the Second Respondent for Dismissal of the Proceeding
Outcome
Proceeding against the second respondent dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['use of Copyright Material for the Services of the Commonwealth or a State' 'application to Fix Terms Under S 183(5)' 'compliance With Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs']
['copyright Law' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['use of Copyright Material for the Services of the Commonwealth or a State' 'application to Fix Terms Under S 183(5)' 'compliance With Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs']

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

Application Under S 183(5) of the Copyright Act 1968 to Fix Terms for Acts Comprised in Copyright, With Motion for Dismissal / Motion by the Second Respondent for Dismissal of the Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended application complied with reg 33C by identifying the work or other subject-matter and the act comprised in the copyright that was done or proposed to be done under s 183(1).' 'Whether the proceeding against the second respondent should be summarily dismissed because no cause of action was disclosed, directions had not been complied with, and the claim as formulated could not possibly succeed.' 'Whether costs should be ordered on dismissal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended application did not comply with reg 33C because it failed to identify the relevant work or the act comprised in the copyright done under s 183(1). Despite repeated directions and further opportunities, the applicant did not provide material that formulated a s 183 claim with sufficient precision, and nothing before the Tribunal suggested that any relevant act had been done for the services of the Commonwealth. As formulated, the claim could not possibly succeed, and it was also defective in form and affected by non-compliance with directions, so the proceeding against the Commonwealth was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Proceeding against the second respondent dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding against the second respondent be dismissed with costs, to be taxed by the Secretary of the Tribunal under s 174 of the Copyright Act 1968 in the same manner in which costs are taxed by Registrars of the Federal Court of Australia, including the application of Order 62 r 46 of the Federal Court Rules.']