Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
University of Western Australia v Gray [2009] FCAFC 116
CONTRACT – implication of terms in law – person employed by university as professor of surgery – express contractual obligations, inter alia, to undertake research, to organise research and generally to stimulate research among the university's staff and students – employee part of a team carrying out research directed to treatment of tumours in the liver – funding of the research came from numerous bodies – the employee had been engaged on research of that kind before joining the staff of the university as well as during his tenure there – inventions and applications for and the grant of patents resulted from the research – whether implied term that the university had proprietary rights in the inventions, patent applications and patents – whether term implied in law that employee held them upon trust for the university – special features of universities and academic pursuits – freedom to publish results of research. Held: there was no "duty to invent" and the conditions required for the implication of a term at law were not satisfied.
FIDUCIARY DUTIES – person employed by university as professor of surgery – express contractual obligations, inter alia, to undertake research, to organise research and generally to stimulate research among the university's staff and students – employee part of a team carrying out research directed to treatment of tumours in the liver – funding of the research came from numerous bodies – the employee had been engaged on research of that kind before joining the staff of the university as well as during his tenure there – inventions and applications for and the grant of patents resulted from the research – whether implied term that the university had proprietary rights in the inventions, patent applications and patents – whether term implied in law that employee held them upon trust for the university – special features of universities and academic pursuits – freedom to publish results of research. Held: in absence of implication of terms in law, there was no independent fiduciary obligation of a kind and scope that made employee accountable to university for the inventions, applications for patents, or patents.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate