Jones v Gedye

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had refused to review a dismissal by a Police Magistrate. The informant, David Jones, acting on behalf of E. Rowlands Proprietary Ltd., had charged the defendant, Leonard Gedye, with unlawfully possessing for sale lemonade to which a registered trade mark was falsely applied, contrary to section 87 of the Trade Marks Act 1905. The defendant, a hotel licensee, manufactured his own aerated waters and was found to have in his possession bottles bearing the E. Rowlands Proprietary Ltd. trade mark, filled with his own lemonade.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence presented justified the Police Magistrate's finding that the defendant acted without intent to defraud, a defence available under section 87. The Police Magistrate had dismissed the information, concluding that no one had been defrauded, that the company had not traded in the area for many years, and that there was no reason to believe purchasers expected a different product. Consequently, the magistrate found the defendant acted without intent to defraud either the company or any other person.

The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, affirmed the interpretation of "intent to defraud" within section 87. The Court held that this phrase means an intention to induce purchasers to believe that goods manufactured by the seller are in fact manufactured by another person. Griffith C.J. reasoned that the evidence allowed the magistrate to conclude that no one was likely to be deceived, given the circumstances of the district and the defendant's business. Therefore, the magistrate's finding that the defendant lacked the requisite intent to defraud was a permissible conclusion based on the facts, and as such, the matter was considered a question of fact, not a question of law upon which special leave to appeal would typically be granted.