Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd  Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 20 March 1906. The case was an influential decision in Australian Private International Law which is generally regarded as based on an extension of the Moçambique rule to actions for infringement of patents. Charles Potter was an analytical chemist who lived in Melbourne, Victoria who in 1901 obtained patents in New South Wales and Victoria for a froth flotation process using sulphuric acid to separate silver, lead and zinc ores from waste. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company, now BHP, was incorporated in Victoria and operated a silver, lead and zinc mine Broken Hill. Guillaume Delprat, the General Manager of BHP, claimed to have discovered a similar process, and this was used at BHP's mine. Potter commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. BHP denied the novelty and utility of the patented process, but also that an action for the infringement in New South Wales of a New South Wales patent was not justiciable in Victoria. The question of law whether the claim was justiciable in Victoria was referred to the Full Court. Potter was represented by Higgins while BHP was represented by Isaacs . A majority of the Supreme Court held that the Victorian Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit as the cause of action was local to New South Wales. Potter appealed to the High Court. In a key statement affirming the application of the Moçambique rule, Griffith CJ stated: It is settled law that an English Court cannot entertain a suit in which the question of title to foreign land is directly in controversy: "British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique". The Courts will no doubt entertain such a question of title if it arises merely incidentally in a case in which the foundation of the jurisdiction is a personal obligation arising from contract or quasi-contractual relationship between the parties. He further went on to say: In my opinion the same rule must be applied to foreign patents that is applied to foreign lands. The reasons upon which the rule in the one case are founded are, I think, equally applicable to the other. 'As already mentioned, the decision is generally regarded as based on the Moçambique rule. Although the Moçambique rule is one of the elements in the conclusion of the High Court, an examination of the way in which the case was argued, and of the reasoning of the High Court, shows that it is a decision extending the act of state doctrine to foreign patents.'