Courts—Practice and procedure—Judgments and orders—Power to vacate before order passed and entered—Circumstances in which power exercised.
Decisions
MASON C.J. I agree with the reasons given by Dawson J. for concluding that the respondents have failed to establish that, without fault on their part, they were afforded no opportunity of being heard on the questions which proved to be decisive in the determination of the appeal in Autodesk Inc. v. Dyason ((1) (1992) 173 CLR 330).
2. However, in my view, that conclusion does not dispose of the respondents' application for a rehearing of the three questions identified as (a), (b) and (c) in the reasons for judgment prepared by Dawson J. The exercise of the jurisdiction to reopen a judgment and to grant a rehearing is not confined to circumstances in which the applicant can show that, by accident and without fault on the applicant's part, he or she has not been heard. It is true that the jurisdiction is to be exercised with great caution ((2) Wentworth v. Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672, at p 684; State Rail Authority of N.S.W. v. Codelfa Construction Pty. Ltd. (1982) 150 CLR 29, at p 38.), having regard to the importance of the public interest in the finality of litigation. It is equally true, as this Court said in Wentworth v. Woollahra Municipal Council ((3) (1982) 149 CLR, at p 684), that: "(g)enerally speaking, it will not be exercised unless the applicant can show that by accident without fault on his part he has not been heard."
3. But these statements do not exclude the exercise of jurisdiction to reopen a judgment which has apparently miscarried for other reasons, at least when the orders pronounced have not been perfected by the taking out of formal orders. So much was acknowledged by Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. in Smith v. N.S.W. Bar Association (No.2) when their Honours said ((4) (1992) 66 ALJR 605, at p 608; 108 ALR 55, at p 60.): "if reasons for judgment have been given, the power is only exercised if there is some matter calling for review". It is sufficient to give three examples. In In re Harrison's Share under a Settlement ((5) (1955) Ch 260), orders were set aside following a decision of the House of Lords which overruled authorities on the basis of which the orders had been made. In New South Wales Bar Association v. Smith ((6) Unreported, 4 July 1991.), the New South Wales Court of Appeal reconsidered orders previously made in view of an argument that the Court had mistakenly assumed that particular evidence had not been given at earlier hearings ((7) The Court of Appeal refused to set aside its orders but an appeal to this Court was successful). And, in Pittalis v. Sherefettin ((8) (1986)…
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.
Continue reading Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6
Case
[1993] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning alleged copyright infringement of computer software. The parties involved were Autodesk Inc. (the appellant) and Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason, and Peter Vincent Kelly (the respondents). The dispute centred on whether the respondents had infringed Autodesk's copyright in its AutoCAD computer program.
The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondents had infringed Autodesk's copyright in the AutoCAD program, specifically concerning the reproduction of a 127-bit series look-up table, and whether the Full Court had erred in its previous decision regarding the scope of that infringement. The Court also considered the circumstances under which a court might vacate or vary its own orders before they are passed and entered.
The High Court reasoned that the respondents had indeed infringed Autodesk's copyright by reproducing a substantial part of the AutoCAD program, including the 127-bit series look-up table. The Court applied principles of copyright law relating to the reproduction of computer programs and the concept of substantial part. It found that the Full Court had incorrectly limited the scope of the injunction granted by Northrop J. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court and varying the original order of Northrop J to provide a more comprehensive restraint against the respondents' infringing activities. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court for further directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Orders 1, 3 and 4 of the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside and in lieu thereof order that:
(1) order 1 of Northrop J dated 15 September 1989 be varied by ordering that: (a) Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason and Peter Vincent Kelly, and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants, agents or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from - (i) reproducing in any material form the whole, or a substantial part, of the computer program known as "AutoCAD"; (ii) selling or letting for hire, or by way of trade, offering, or exposing for sale or hire, any article, being a reproduction of the whole, or a substantial part, of the said computer program. (b) Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason and Peter Vincent Kelly, and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants, agents or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from reproducing in any material form the whole, or a substantial part, of the 127-bit series look-up table in the said computer program and, more particularly, in that part of the computer program known as "Widget C".
(2) the appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court by Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason and Peter Vincent
Kelly be otherwise dismissed with costs.
3. Remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, for a directions hearing on a date to be fixed for directions as to its further conduct.