Adams v Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd - [2002] QSC 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adams v Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QSC 223

PARTIES:

RICHARD ADAMS
(plaintiff)
v
CLIFFORD BUTTON
(first defendant)
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED – ACN 087 326 690
(second defendant)
MASTER BUILDERS AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED ACN 008 383 453
(third defendant)
QUASAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 003 954 210
(fourth defendant)
RODNEY KENTWELL JOHNSTON
(fifth defendant)
TREVOR HOWSE & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
ACN 003 753 839
(sixth defendant)
TREVOR HOWSE
(seventh defendant)
BUILDING SURVEYING SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 006 787 560
(eighth defendant)
DAVID GAIRNS
(ninth defendant)
NICHOLAS KUKULKA
(tenth defendant)
RUSSELL COCKS
(eleventh defendant)
GEOFFREY CHARLES WEBSTER
(twelfth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 8206 of 1998

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court
Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April – 1 May 2002

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

That judgment be given for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the amount of $102,479.10 including interest.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – BREACH – whether defendants breached contract – whether plaintiff entitled to terminate contract – whether fundamental terms – where contract for authorship of building construction manuals – where plaintiff was author – where defendants imposed new conditions – where both parties terminated contract prior to completion

CONTRACT – REPUDIATION – where late performance by plaintiff – where defendants served notice making time of the essence – whether notice specified reasonable time for completion – whether notice amounted to repudiation – whether plaintiff lawfully terminated contract

CONTRACT – QUANTUM MERUIT – whether plaintiff entitled to payment for services rendered – where defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract

DAMAGES – CONTRACT – MEASURE OF – where contract for authorship of building construction manuals – where contract terminated prior to completion – whether plaintiff entitled to money owed under the contract – where plaintiff claimed under quantum meruit for services rendered outside the contract – where defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract – where plaintiff claimed for loss of opportunities had contract been completed – whether loss of opportunity to write updates for manuals – whether loss of opportunity of acknowledgment as author – whether exemplary damages available

COPYRIGHT AND DESIGNS – INFRINGEMENT – whether defendants breached plaintiff’s copyright in the published manual – whether plaintiff assigned copyright to defendants – whether plaintiff assigned licence to defendants

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – whether defendants owed plaintiff duty to acknowledge authorship under s 190 Copyright Act – whether defendants breached duty by failing to acknowledge plaintiff – whether defendants breached duty by acknowledging others

TRADE PRACTICES – MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – whether representation as to copyright misleading or deceptive – whether failure to acknowledge plaintiff misleading or deceptive – whether acknowledgment of others misleading or deceptive

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 190, s 193, s 194, s 196(3)
Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000, Item 3, Schedule 1

Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Australian…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams v Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QSC 223
Decision Date: 13 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adams v Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Adams, brought an action against the second and third defendants, Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd, seeking relief for alleged breaches of contract, copyright infringement, and misleading or deceptive conduct. The case centred around a contract for Adams to author building construction manuals, which was terminated before completion. Adams sought damages for the breach of contract, under quantum meruit for services rendered, and for the loss of opportunities that would have arisen had the contract been completed. The defendants, in turn, counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court had to determine several key issues: whether the defendants breached the contract by imposing new conditions; whether Adams was entitled to terminate the contract due to the breach; if the breached terms were fundamental; whether the defendants' notice made time of the essence and if it constituted a repudiation; and if Adams was entitled to quantum meruit for services rendered. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants breached Adams' copyright in the published manual, whether they failed to acknowledge Adams as the author, and whether their conduct was misleading or deceptive under trade practices law.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract by imposing new conditions, which led Adams to lawfully terminate the contract. The breached terms were fundamental, entitling Adams to terminate. The notice served by the defendants did not make time of the essence in a reasonable manner and did not amount to a repudiation. Adams was entitled to quantum meruit for services rendered outside the contract. The court awarded Adams damages of $102,479.10, including interest, against the second and third defendants, finding in favour of Adams on the claims for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and misleading or deceptive conduct.

The final orders of the court included a judgment in favour of Adams against the second and third defendants for the specified amount, including interest. The court did not find it necessary to award exemplary damages or to address the plaintiff's claim for loss of opportunities to write updates for the manuals or to be acknowledged as the author.

Orders

Orders of the court

That judgment be given for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the amount of $102,479.10 including interest.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Adams v Quasar Management Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QSC 223
PARTIES:	RICHARD ADAMS (plaintiff) v CLIFFORD BUTTON (first defendant) STANDARDS AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED – ACN 087 326 690 (second defendant) MASTER BUILDERS AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED ACN 008 383 453 (third defendant) QUASAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 003 954 210 (fourth defendant) RODNEY KENTWELL JOHNSTON (fifth defendant) TREVOR HOWSE & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 003 753 839 (sixth defendant) TREVOR HOWSE (seventh defendant) BUILDING SURVEYING SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 006 787 560 (eighth defendant) DAVID GAIRNS (ninth defendant) NICHOLAS KUKULKA (tenth defendant) RUSSELL COCKS (eleventh defendant) GEOFFREY CHARLES WEBSTER (twelfth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 8206 of 1998
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 August 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April – 1 May 2002
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	That judgment be given for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the amount of $102,479.10 including interest.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – BREACH – whether defendants breached contract – whether plaintiff entitled to terminate contract – whether fundamental terms – where contract for authorship of building construction manuals – where plaintiff was author – where defendants imposed new conditions – where both parties terminated contract prior to completion CONTRACT – REPUDIATION – where late performance by plaintiff – where defendants served notice making time of the essence – whether notice specified reasonable time for completion – whether notice amounted to repudiation – whether plaintiff lawfully terminated contract CONTRACT – QUANTUM MERUIT – whether plaintiff entitled to payment for services rendered – where defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract DAMAGES – CONTRACT – MEASURE OF – where contract for authorship of building construction manuals – where contract terminated prior to completion – whether plaintiff entitled to money owed under the contract – where plaintiff claimed under quantum meruit for services rendered outside the contract – where defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract – where plaintiff claimed for loss of opportunities had contract been completed – whether loss of opportunity to write updates for manuals – whether loss of opportunity of acknowledgment as author – whether exemplary damages available COPYRIGHT AND DESIGNS – INFRINGEMENT – whether defendants breached plaintiff’s copyright in the published manual – whether plaintiff assigned copyright to defendants – whether plaintiff assigned licence to defendants INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – whether defendants owed plaintiff duty to acknowledge authorship under s 190 Copyright Act – whether defendants breached duty by failing to acknowledge plaintiff – whether defendants breached duty by acknowledging others TRADE PRACTICES – MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – whether representation as to copyright misleading or deceptive – whether failure to acknowledge plaintiff misleading or deceptive – whether acknowledgment of others misleading or deceptive Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 190, s 193, s 194, s 196(3) Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000, Item 3, Schedule 1 Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322 Australian…