Practice—Summary power to terminate action—Principles applicable—Inherent jurisdiction—Jurisdiction under rule of court—High Court Rules, O. 26, r. 18. Patents—Invention—Use for services of Commonwealth or State—"Authority of the State"—Commissioner for Railways—Construction of carriages for use in State railway system—"Services of the State"—Written authority to use invention—When contract itself sufficient authority—Patents Act 1952-1960 (Cth), ss. 125, 132*.
Decision
November 9. BARWICK C.J. delivered the following written judgment:- General Steel Industries Incorporated commenced this action against the Commissioner for Railways, A.E. Goodwin Ltd. and Tulloch Ltd., seeking injunctions to restrain the infringement by the defendants or any of them of letters patent granted to the plaintiff under the Patents Act 1952-1960 (Cth) in respect of an invention entitled "Railway Vehicle Body and Truck Central Bearing". (at p127)
2. The plaintiff, by its statement of claim, identifies the Commissioner for Railways as being the Commissioner for Railways under the Transport (Division of Functions) Act, 1932 (N.S.W.) as amended, and asserts that the Commissioner, without the leave or licence of the plaintiff, "has been . . . contracting to have manufactured . . . railway vehicle central bearing structures . . . made . . . and manufactured in infringement of the letters patent of the plaintiff and of the claims in the complete specification thereof". (at p127)
3. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendant A.E. Goodwin Ltd., "without the leave or licence of the plaintiff, has been making and manufacturing railway vehicle central bearing structures made and manufactured in infringement of the letters patent and of the claims of the complete specification", and that the defendant Tulloch Ltd., "without the leave or licence of the plaintiff, has been . . . assembling . . . railway vehicle central bearing structures made and manufactured in infringement of the letters patent" and of the said claims. (at p127)
4. The plaintiff then proceeds to assert that the acts of the defendant A.E. Goodwin Ltd. and of the defendant Tulloch Ltd., of which it complains, "have been done pursuant to agreements between each of them and the Commissioner for Railways respectively, pursuant to which complete railway carriages have been made and assembled for use by the said Commissioner for Railways". (at p127)
5. The defendants, by the three separate summonses now heard by me, seek to set aside the writ and the statement of claim in this action, or alternatively, to stay further proceedings thereon upon the grounds that the plaintiff neither has nor discloses a reasonable, or for that matter any, cause of action against the defendants or any of them. For this purpose the defendants each calls in aid the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to prevent the abuse of its process, the provisions of Order 26, r. 18, and those of Order 63, r. 2, of the Rules of this Court. (at p127)
6. Each defendant in support of its…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NS...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69
Case
[1964] HCA 69
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
General Steel Industries Inc. (the plaintiff) brought an action against the Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a breach of contract, specifically relating to the supply of steel for the construction of a bridge. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to provide timely access to the construction site, which in turn prevented the plaintiff from completing its contractual obligations within the agreed timeframe, leading to increased costs and losses.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had breached its contractual obligations to provide the plaintiff with reasonable access to the construction site. This involved an interpretation of the contract's terms regarding the defendant's responsibilities in facilitating the plaintiff's performance of its work. The court was required to determine if the defendant's actions or omissions constituted a failure to provide such access, and if so, whether this failure caused the damages claimed by the plaintiff.
Barwick C.J. held that the contract imposed an implied term that the defendant would provide reasonable access to the site to enable the plaintiff to perform its work. The evidence indicated that the defendant had failed to provide this access, thereby breaching the contract. His Honour reasoned that the defendant's conduct, which included delays in clearing the site and providing necessary information, directly hindered the plaintiff's ability to proceed with the construction. Consequently, the defendant was liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of this breach.