McMullan v Stewarts and Lloyds (Australia) Limited

Robert McMullan (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had dismissed his action against Stewarts & Lloyds (Australia) Limited (the respondents) for infringement of two Commonwealth Patents relating to rotary sprinklers. The primary judge in the Supreme Court had found no similarity between the appellant's and respondents' articles and dismissed the action.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether an appeal lay from the Supreme Court's decision without special leave, and if so, whether the respondents' contrivance constituted an infringement of the appellant's patents. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the judgment involved a claim respecting property of the value of £300, as required for an appeal as of right under the Judiciary Act 1903-1910, or if special leave to appeal was necessary.

The High Court reasoned that the central question in the appeal was a matter of fact: whether the respondents' contrivance was so similar to the appellant's as to constitute an infringement. The judgment of the Supreme Court did not affect the validity of the appellant's patents. Therefore, an appeal would only lie without special leave if the claim involved property of the value of £300. The Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that his entire claim, which was primarily focused on preventing the use of a specific contrivance by the respondents in Western Australia and included only trifling past damages, was of that value. Consequently, special leave to appeal was required, and the Court concluded that the case was not one warranting such leave.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed as incompetent, with costs awarded to the respondents.