Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Pty Limited (No.2) [2002] FCA 1268

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Pty Limited (No.2) [2002] FCA 1268 CONTRACTS – construction and interpretation WORDS AND PHRASES – "arising out of" Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (1998) 90 FCR 1 referred to Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 referred to IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 446 referred to Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 186 ALR 289 cited Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 applied Hamzy v Tricon International Restaurants (2001) 115 FCR 78 applied

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY v GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991) AND DOUGLAS RAWSON-HARRIS

N728 OF 2002

GYLES J

SYDNEY

11 OCTOBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N728 OF 2002

BETWEEN: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY

APPLICANT

AND: GOLDSPAR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 705 991)

FIRST RESPONDENT

DOUGLAS RAWSON-HARRIS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The answers to the separate questions are as follows: Question 1: Whether on the true construction of the contract between the Applicant and the First Respondent dated 29 May 1998 ("the Contract") and in the events which have happened, the owner of copyright in the drawings identified in Schedule A hereto ("the Works"), is the Applicant or the First Respondent Answer: (i) As to the first item in Schedule A - not the applicant; (ii) As to the second item in Schedule A - as between the applicant and the respondents, the applicant; (ii) As to the third item in Schedule A - inappropriate to answer as a preliminary question. Question 2: Whether on the true construction of the Contract and in the events which have happened the owner of all right, title and interest in the intellectual property (including but not limited to all design, patent and/or copyright) which has arisen, may have arisen or may arise, in relation to the Works, is the Applicant or the First Respondent. Answer: Inappropriate to answer as a preliminary question. Question 3: Whether on the true construction of the Contract and in the events which have happened the owner of all right, title and interest in the copyright which has arisen, may have arisen or may arise, in relation to the goods supplied by the First Respondent to the Applicant pursuant to the contract is the Applicant or the First Respondent. Answer: Inappropriate to answer as a preliminary question. Question 4: Whether on the true construction of the Contract and in the events which have happened the owner of all right, title and interest in the intellectual property (including but not limited to all design, patent and/or copyright) which has arisen, may have arisen or may arise, in relation to the goods supplied by the First Respondent to the Applicant pursuant to the Contract is the Applicant or the First Respondent. Answer: Inappropriate to answer as a preliminary question. 2. The respondents are to pay 50% of the costs of the applicant of and incidental to the separate determination of these questions. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.