Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 2008 23 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2008] HCAB 10 (21 October 2008)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, and refused special leave to appeal.

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Special Leave Dismissed

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the September–October 2008 sittings.

Lujans v Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd

High Court of Australia: [2008] HCA 51.

French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ.

Judgment delivered: 16 October 2008.

Catchwords:

Torts — Causation — Road accident — Whether road deceptive due to defendants' maintenance — Whether driver error constituted contributory negligence — Whether driver error sole cause of accident.
Courts — Jurisdiction and powers on appeal — Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of New South Wales — Whether rehearing under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A(5) properly conducted — Whether failure to conduct real review of trial.
Courts — Jurisdiction and powers on appeal — Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of New South Wales — Conduct of rehearing — Whether evidence and trial judge's findings adequately considered — Whether original photographs relied upon — Whether inconsistent evidence taken into account.
Words and phrases — “appeal”, “rehearing”.

Appealed from NSW CA: [2007] NSWCA 342; (2007) 49 MVR 178.

Northern Territory v Collins

High Court of Australia: [2008] HCA 49.

Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ.

Judgment delivered: 16 October 2008.

Catchwords:

Intellectual property — Patents — Infringement — Contributory infringement — Respondents owned patent for methods of producing oils from species of a particular genus of tree — Appellant Territory licensed third party (“ACOC”) to enter Crown land and remove timber from trees of this species — Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 117(1) provided that, if “use of a product by a person” would infringe a patent, “supply” of that product by one person to another was an infringement by supplier — Respondents alleged Territory infringed patent by supply of timber to ACOC — Relationship between exclusive rights to exploit patent and s 117 — Meaning of “product” in s 117 where patent said to be infringed is for method or process — Whether “product” confined to product that itself results from use of a patented method or process.
Intellectual property — Patents — Infringement — Contributory infringement — Meaning of “supply” in s 117 — Whether grant of licences to sever and take timber from Crown land constituted “supply” of timber by Territory for purposes of s 117(1) — Relevance of classification of interest of ACOC as realty or personalty.
Intellectual property — Patents — Infringement — Contributory infringement — Section 117(2)(b) provided that “use of a product by a person” in s 117(1) meant “any use” if product was not a “staple commercial product” — Meaning…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] HCAB 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lujans v Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd was a tort case concerning causation, contributory negligence, and the proper conduct of a rehearing in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court included whether the road in question was deceptive due to the defendants' maintenance, whether the driver's error constituted contributory negligence, and whether the driver's error was the sole cause of the accident. Additionally, the court examined whether the rehearing was properly conducted and if the trial judge's findings were adequately considered. The court held that the road was not deceptive, the driver's error was not contributory negligence, and the driver's error was the sole cause of the accident. Furthermore, the court found that the rehearing was not properly conducted as the trial judge's findings were not adequately considered, and original photographs were relied upon. The court also determined that inconsistent evidence was not taken into account. Northern Territory v Collins was a patent case concerning contributory infringement and the meaning of "product" and "supply" in the Patents Act 1990. The legal issues before the court included whether the Territory's grant of licenses to a third party to remove timber from Crown land constituted "supply" of timber for the purposes of the Act, and whether the timber taken was a "staple commercial product." The court held that the Territory's grant of licenses did not constitute "supply" of timber, and the timber taken was not a "staple commercial product." Sok v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was a citizenship and migration case concerning the timing of a claim of domestic violence in relation to a spouse visa. The legal issues before the court included whether the domestic violence exception could be engaged where the applicant first raised the claim in an application to the Migration Review Tribunal for review of the Minister's refusal, and whether the review by the Tribunal was conducted in accordance with the Migration Act 1958. The court held that the domestic violence exception could be engaged in such circumstances, and the review by the Tribunal was not conducted in accordance with the Act.

Orders