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.

'[2]: at [60] In 2002 a majority of the High Court indicated that it would like to reconsider this authority, with Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ stating "We also would reserve for further consideration in an appropriate case the Moçambique rule,[7] and the standing of Potter v Broken Hill Propriety Co Ltd."[1][8]

[10]As of June 2017[update] the High Court has not reconsidered the standing of Potter v Broken Hill Propriety Co Ltd.[11] 'It received no attention in the English case-law until it was mentioned by Lord Wilberforce in Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd [1979] AC 508, 536 as authority for the proposition that the Moçambique rule applied in Australia.

It was only from the 1980s that it came to be regarded as a significant authority in the field of transnational intellectual property litigation: Def Lepp Music v Stuart-Brown [1986] RPC 273; Tyburn Productions Ltd v Conan Doyle [1991] Ch 75 (both copyright cases).

'[2]: at [68] The 2011 United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth,[2] significantly eroded much of the underpinning of this case and of the Moçambique rule, at least within the UK.