Barrett Property Group Ltd v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Barrett Property Group Ltd v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute over alleged copyright infringement in residential home designs. The plaintiffs, Barrett Property Group, claimed that Metricon Homes had copied substantial parts of their architectural designs without permission. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether Metricon Homes had reproduced a substantial part of Barrett’s copyright works by copying. This issue was central to the trial, consuming more than half of the trial time and forming the bulk of the judgment.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on whether there was actual copying of the architectural designs. The respondents' expert witness, Mr John Permewan, provided significant evidence which was later found to be misdirected by Metricon. His opinions were based on incorrect assumptions, leading to wasted costs for both parties. The court concluded that the respondents' conduct led to the misdirection of Mr Permewan and that this conduct warranted indemnity costs. The trial judge found that approximately 50% of the trial preparation and trial time was devoted to the derivation and copying issues.

Following the court's findings, the judge ordered that the respondents, Metricon Homes, pay the applicants' costs to be taxed and paid forthwith, with 50% of the trial preparation and trial costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis. The operation of these orders was stayed pending the disposition of any appeal by the respondents. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the costs of the motion for special costs orders.

This decision underscores the importance of accurate and truthful evidence in copyright infringement cases and the potential for indemnity costs when parties act in a manner that leads to significant wasted costs.