Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3

Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3

The proposed application did not disclose a cognisable claim under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(5) because the Applicant alleged only that the Commonwealth and the States acknowledged his report, and acknowledgement of a literary work is not an act comprised in copyright under s 31(1)(a). The paperwork also did not comply with reg 97(2) because it failed to identify the act in respect of which remuneration was said to be due.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Copyright Act 1968 (cth) S 183(5) for a Determination of Remuneration / Whether the Registrar Should Accept the Applicant's Documents for Filing
Outcome
Registrar directed not to accept the Applicant's documents for filing.
Legal Topics
['use of Copyright Material for the Services of the Crown' 'cognisable Claim Under Copyright Act 1968 (cth) S 183(5)' 'formal Requirements for Application Under Copyright Regulations 2017 (cth) Reg 97(2)']
['copyright Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['use of Copyright Material for the Services of the Crown' 'cognisable Claim Under Copyright Act 1968 (cth) S 183(5)' 'formal Requirements for Application Under Copyright Regulations 2017 (cth) Reg 97(2)']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Copyright Act 1968 (cth) S 183(5) for a Determination of Remuneration / Whether the Registrar Should Accept the Applicant's Documents for Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed application disclosed a cognisable claim for remuneration under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(5).' 'Whether the Applicant identified acts comprised in copyright done by the Commonwealth or a State under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(1).' "Whether the Applicant's paperwork complied with the formal requirements of Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth) reg 97(2)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed application did not disclose a cognisable claim under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(5) because the Applicant alleged only that the Commonwealth and the States acknowledged his report, and acknowledgement of a literary work is not an act comprised in copyright under s 31(1)(a). The paperwork also did not comply with reg 97(2) because it failed to identify the act in respect of which remuneration was said to be due.

Court Disposition

Registrar directed not to accept the Applicant's documents for filing.

Orders

  • ["The Registrar not accept the Applicant's documents for filing."]