HIS HONOUR: This ie an application for an extension of letters Patent. The original tex= expired on 20th Februexy, 1950. m 14th iaroh, 1991 I heard an application for an extension of the term on the ground of less suatained ty reason of heetilities. I granted the extension for 4; years, and that period expired om 20th August, 1954. 4m application now comes before me for a further extension on the same grounds, that is te say, wax less. She clroumetances which were before me in 1951 sebieafied me that theve had been a loss due to hostilitics which, ae far ag I was able to see on the evidence I had, could be adequately compensated if the patentee were granted on addition of 4% years to the texu of his patent, which wes an addition equal to that which had been granted in England. it io now said that diffieultice of several kinds heave eoourred sinoe the date of that hearing which have absorbed & good deal of the time covered by the extension which I granted, and that heving regard to these diffieulties it would be right to inoxease the period of extension. She difficulties were of two kinds. One arose out of the requirement of the Capital Issues Regulationea fer the eonsent of the Capital Isaues Board before a company could be formed with the necessary capital to enable snnufacture in Auetralie in accordance with the patent to be coumenced. The other kind of diffioulties concerned the shortage of experieneed and qualified men and the difficulty of obtaining the requisite mohinery for the commencement of the meanu- facturing business. Bow those two classes of difficulties were put to me ty Mr. Thomas as eagh ealling for an extension of the period of the patent. The first, that which arose out of the Capital issues Regulations, was put to me as having ocoupied a period of 18 or 19 months which otherwise could have been used in procseding with the exploitation of the itavention. Me. Dewon pointed out that, on the evidence, even 2 those diffieultdes hed sot existed the applicant would atill not have been able te commence production until a date after those difficulties in fact came te an end. Om that being pointed out, I asked Me. Thomas whether a conclusion te that effect would be in accordance with a corset reading of the evidence. He was not prepared to admit that it would; neither wes he prepsred te make any submission to support the view that it would not. 'Being thue told, with sonewbat less candour than < think I was entitled te expect, thet if I wanted to know what was the effect of the evidense I had better find out for myself, I reserved judguent in order that I might onrefully read the evidence a0 as to be sure that if 1 aecepted the view Mr. Dawes had put I was not inadvertently dedng any tejustice to Mr. Thoms" elient. A perusal of the evidence entisfies me that i. Dawes was xight and that the ground relating te the time ovgupied by obtaining Capital Issues consent ought never to have deen put ag & separate ground. It wes rightly included, ef course, in the evidence, beoause the deponents to the affidavite were concerned to demonstrate to the Court that im all reepecte, im respect of capital itesues and in every other, the company was pressing on with all rengonable expedition towards the due expledtetion ef its patent. The e@vidente was therefore rightly before mo, but it did not show, and should not have been put as showing, that a separate Be peried of 18 or 19 montha hed been absorbed in obtaining Capital Iesnes consent, which otherwise would have been svailable for manufacture. I turn them to the other class of difficulties whieh the conpany experienced. It is clear upon the evidence that there wae very great difficulty in obtaining the netessary ateff. Men of specialieed experience and training were xequired for the establishment of the business, and maghinery of a very special kind was alee required. Both were available im England, but they were there fully absorbed im making good the arrears of demand which had built up in England owing te the war, and it was not until 1952 that these éiffieultios began te be overtone. As a result, production was uot commenced in australia until July 1993. I am satiafied that the company made every endeavour whieh sould reasonably be expeoted in order to get inte fell produotion, and that the troubles arising from the shortage of trained persons to emgage in the asnufacture and the shortage of mochinery were the cause of so belated a commence~ ment of productive operations. How, when 2 granted the 44 years' extension in 19591 it must have been obvious, though I profess to no actual retollection of the facters which operated upon ay mind, that some delay would ocour before manufacture in Australia could be commensed. From the very nature of the invention, pro~ duction could sot have been commenged at once; some delay had te occur. I vexy much doubt whether I thought that anything like the delay which has ccourred would be at all probable. if I had then known that production would not be possible until another 24 yeare had expired, that is to say until July 1993, I think I probably would not have regarded 4% years as @ sufficient extension. Sow I pause to say that Mr. Dawes made one sub- miseion with whieh I find myaclf unable to agree. He con- tended, both im regard to the capital isoues matter and in wogert, I think, te the shortage of mon and mechinery, that in eo far as delay in production resulted from economic conditions they could not be taken into account, even though in on indirect but real sense these soonomic conditions themeslves had their origin in the dislecetion of the whole soonomy of the oountxey and of the world during the war. I quite agree that in detemniming what less on extension should compensate for, attention aust be confined to less eotually caused by hostilities, which includes, of course, less arising from the direst aftermath of war. But the matters now relied upen are not relied upon in order to show that I underestimated the amount of lees which the applicant hed suffered. They are relied upon to show that the lose whieh I then was satiefied had been inourred could sot, in the circumstances which turned out to exist, be adequately wade good by an extension of only 4% years. I should be prepared to hold that in deteraiming the length of the extension which would euffice to make good a given emount of war loss it is right, ond indeed it ice necessaxy, to attend to the conditione which my be expected te operate during the period of the extension in order that an opinion my be formed ae to when the war lese is likely to be recouped. Aocordingly I should be prepared to grant a further extension in this ease if I were satisfied that the conditions which the company actually found itself attempting to cope with in the period after I ande ay order were so much more disadvantageous to it than I had expested that a further extension is required in order to offset the disappointment of my expectations as to what the future held. When I look at the evidense, however, i find, os I have said, that production proved to be possible ae from duly 1993. What perted of delay I would have thought was bs likely when I wae considering the matter in March 1951 if I had been conesrned to fix upon a particular period I find it, of course, impossible to say at this stage, bet I imagine it would have been a matter of a few months, That means that fer some peried, several monthe less then 2 years and 4 months, the company experienced greater obstacles to commencing production than I could have allowed for when I fixed upon 4% yeare, But if 2 had had the gift of prophesy sufficiently te see what would in fact ocour, I fand it vexy diffiewlt to suppose that I would have granted an extension of more than 6 yeares that weuld have allowed an additional 18 sonths for the unexpested diffieulties as die~ tinguished from the diffieulties that I must have thought, in the general way, would provabiy be encountered. Now almost 16 mouths have expixed since the 4% years came td ite end. If 1 had granted the 6 yeare' extension the patent would.have run out om the 20th February, 1996 and we ore already in the widdle of Sesember 1935. It seems te me waelgss to gremt an extension with only a very few weeke to rum, especially as the invention with which I om concerned ic of @ so special charneter that any competitors who might wish to set up in business tn opposition to the applicant sould not do so without an extensive period of preparation end much expenditure of capital; and, of course, any extension that I gave would have to be om the terms which were laid down in the Celotex case and the Gillette case, so that the period whieh has already oxpixed ef the extension I might have granted would not be a period ef proteetion to the applicant. In these cliroumstances it seome to me that there is ne ease made out for a further extension and I therefare vefuse the application. The applicant must, of course, pay the Commissionsr*s costs. SQ: HOLfs Would your Honour indi ude an order aa to the inter~ leoutexy costs which were reserved? és BIS HONOUR: Are there some reserved costs, ir. Holt? MR. HOLZ: Yes, your Honour. Bis HowoUn: I did not realize that. Well, if there axe they will have to be included. MR. HOLE: If your Honour pleases. Theve was an application for dixeetions, I think, im August of thie year. HIS HONOUR? Well them the application is refused. The applicant te te pay the Coumiseioner's costs, including reserved costes.