The Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14

The Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14

The Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) and the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) are supported by s 51(xviii) of the Constitution as laws with respect to patents of inventions; the concept of 'patents of inventions' is not confined to the understanding of 1900 but embraces new forms of intellectual property...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: The Grain Pool of Western Australia; First Defendant: The Commonwealth of Australia; Second Defendant: Cultivaust Pty Ltd; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (intervening)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law—reserved Questions / Full Court Answering Reserved Constitutional Questions
Outcome
The reserved questions were answered in the negative: neither the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) nor the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth), nor any part thereof, is invalid for want of support by the Commonwealth's legislative powers invoked. Costs of the reserved questions to be dealt with by the Justice...
Legal Topics
Validity of Commonwealth Legislation, Patents of Inventions—constitutional Scope, Plant Variety Rights—statutory Interpretation, Scope of S 51(xviii) of the Constitution
Constitutional Law Intellectual Property Validity of Commonwealth Legislation Patents of Inventions—constitutional Scope Plant Variety Rights—statutory Interpretation Scope of S 51(xviii) of the Constitution

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Grain Pool of Western Australia

Plaintiff

The Commonwealth of Australia

First Defendant

Cultivaust Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (intervening)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law—reserved Questions / Full Court Answering Reserved Constitutional Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) and Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) or any part thereof are invalid for want of support under s 51(xviii), (xxix) or (xxxix) of the Constitution or any other head of Commonwealth power

Ratio Decidendi

The Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) and the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) are supported by s 51(xviii) of the Constitution as laws with respect to patents of inventions; the concept of 'patents of inventions' is not confined to the understanding of 1900 but embraces new forms of intellectual property rights in the nature of a temporary monopoly for products of intellectual effort, as defined by Parliament. The statutes' criteria for novelty, breeding/origination, and the nature of rights conferred are within the permissible field of Commonwealth legislative power.

Court Disposition

The reserved questions were answered in the negative: neither the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) nor the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth), nor any part thereof, is invalid for want of support by the Commonwealth's legislative powers invoked. Costs of the reserved questions to be dealt with by the Justice...

Orders

  • Reserved questions (a) and (b) answered: No, the Acts were supported by s 51(xviii) of the Constitution; unnecessary to determine support under other powers.
  • Costs of the questions reserved to be dealt with by the Justice disposing of the action.