Legal Research
Cases
Brookes v Ralph

Brookes v Ralph

Case [2009] QSC 416 18 December 2009

Intellectual Property Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brookes v Ralph & Ors [2009] QSC 416

PARTIES:

THOMAS JOSEPH BROOKES
(plaintiff)
v
KATHLEEN MARY RALPH
(first defendant)
SEAN KEITH RALPH
(second defendant)
CANTLEY TRADING PTY LTD ACN 103 771 731

(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 6274 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 22 May 2009
Further submissions 27 May, 4 and 15 June 2009

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $261,237.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS – PARTICULAR CASES – where the plaintiff and the first and second defendants entered into a commercial venture – whether there was a joint venture agreement between the parties – whether the defendants are in breach of fiduciary obligations

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – INFRINGEMENT – DESIGNS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for breach of copyright in his building plans – whether the defendants have breached copyright

Aberdeen Railway Co. v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Macq 461
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Barns v Ryan [2003] QCA 292
Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors & Agency Co. Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384
Consul Developments Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373
Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mantonella Pty Ltd v Myles Thompson [2009] QCA 80
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] 1 AC 421
United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1

Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544

COUNSEL:

C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff

LA Stephens for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Gregg Lawyers for the plaintiff

Morgan Conley Solicitors for the defendants

Overview

The plaintiff, Mr Brookes, lived in Sydney where he designed and built yachting equipment. He met the first defendant, Mrs Ralph, at the Gold Coast in about March 2000. Mrs Ralph owned and operated a business selling swimming pool chemicals and equipment wholesale at Loganholme. She was assisted by her adult son, Sean Ralph, the second defendant.

A personal relationship between Mr Brookes and Mrs Ralph developed and in November 2001 Mr Brookes relocated to Queensland taking up residence with Mrs Ralph in her home at Taneh Merah and moving his business into her rented factory premises. That personal relationship broke down and he moved out of her home and factory at least by mid-2002. The relationship continued in an “on-again-off-again” and rather turbulent fashion until mid-February 2003.

Mr Brookes encouraged Mrs Ralph to implement her long held desire to own a purpose built factory for her business. She was concerned about her capacity to finance such a project at that time as she had had serious cash flow problems in the immediate past. He was enthusiastic and wanted…

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 Brookes v Ralph

Details

AGLC: Brookes v Ralph [2009] QSC 416
Case: [2009] QSC 416
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brookes v Ralph was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Brookes, alleged that the first and second defendants, Ralph, had breached fiduciary obligations and infringed his copyright in building plans. The plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a commercial venture, but the plaintiff claimed there was no written joint venture agreement, and the defendants were in breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants had used his building plans without authorisation, thereby infringing his copyright.

The central legal issues in the case were whether there was a joint venture agreement between the parties and if the defendants had breached any fiduciary obligations. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendants had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the building plans. The court had to examine the relationship between the parties, the existence of any joint venture, and the nature of the obligations owed by the defendants to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the defendants' use of the plaintiff's building plans constituted copyright infringement.

The court found that there was no written joint venture agreement between the parties, but the conduct of the parties indicated the existence of a joint venture. The court held that the defendants were in breach of their fiduciary obligations by using the plaintiff's building plans without his consent, thereby acting in their own interest rather than in the interest of the joint venture. The court also found that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by using his building plans without authorisation. As a result, the court awarded damages of $261,237 to the plaintiff against the defendants.

The Federal Court of Australia ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $261,237. The court found in favour of the plaintiff on both the breach of fiduciary obligations and copyright infringement claims. The court's decision recognised the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and the need for parties in a joint venture to act in the best interests of the venture.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $261,237.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Brookes v Ralph [2009] QSC 416

Most Recent Citation

Alborn v Stephens [2011] QSC 341

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Hookey v Manthey
[2018] QSC 207 Para 11

…onship, fiduciary duties are owed in relation to the property the subject of the undertaking,[28] which in this case they contend is the engine. [25] [2009] QSC 416. [26] [2009] QSC 416 at [90]. [27] At [90]. [28] At [12].…
Alborn v Stephens
[2011] QSC 341 Para 1

…must be fashioned to fit the nature of the case and the particulars facts.”[9] [9] Warman International Ltd v Dwyer at 559; Brookes v Ralph & Ors [2009] QSC 416 at [102]; Team Dynamik Racing Pty Ltd v Longhurst Racing Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2007] QSC 232 at [56].…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson
[2009] QCA 80 Para 1

…1](1995) 182 CLR 544 at 558. [72](1995) 182 CLR 544 at 562. [73](1995) 182 CLR 544 at 559. See also Mantonella Pty Ltd v Myles Thompson [2009] QCA 80 per McMurdo P at [17]. [74](1995) 182 CLR 544 at 561.…
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd
[2007] HCA 22

…y Trustees, Executors & Agency Co. Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384 Consul Developments Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Mantonella Pty Ltd v Myles Thompson [2009] QCA 80 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 Target Holdings Ltd v R…
Barnes v Ryan
[2003] QCA 292 Para 1

…having previously handed over his drawings and ceased, thererafter, to take any further part in the project. [58]Mr Stephens relied upon Barns v Ryan [2003] QCA 292 but that case raises no particular principle and, like most, depends upon the particular facts.…
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer
[1995] HCA 18

…418 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] 1 AC 421 United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1 Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544 COUNSEL: C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff LA Stephens for the defendants SOLICITORS: Gregg Lawyers for the plaintiff Morgan Conley Solicitors for the defendant…
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd
[1990] HCA 20 Para 1

…n. In attempting to assess those matters I would reduce the quantum by 30 per cent which gives a figure of $211,237. [80] Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638. [81]See the approach in Warman (1995) 182 CLR 544 at 566.…
United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd
[1985] HCA 49

…lth (1907) 5 CLR 418 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] 1 AC 421 United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1 Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544 COUNSEL: C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff LA Stephens for the defendants SOLICITORS: Gregg Lawyers for the plaintiff Mo…
Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd
[1975] HCA 8 Para 1

…be allowed to make any profit without the knowledge and consent of his principal and applied it generally to persons in a fiduciary position. [64](1975) 132 CLR 373 at 393. [65]At 394. [66](1929) 42 CLR 384 at 408-9.…
Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd
[1929] HCA 24 Para 1

…nowledge and consent of his principal and applied it generally to persons in a fiduciary position. [64](1975) 132 CLR 373 at 393. [65]At 394. [66](1929) 42 CLR 384 at 408-9.…
Spencer v The Commonwealth
[1907] HCA 82 Para 1

…arrangements made with respect to this tenant. Furthermore, market rent was what was agreed between the parties.[77] [76] Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 per Griffith CJ at 432. [77]Document 14, part of Exhibit 26 completed in Exhibit 75.…
Barnes v Addy
9 Ch App 244

…his building plans – whether the defendants have breached copyright Aberdeen Railway Co. v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Macq 461 Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 Barns v Ryan [2003] QCA 292 Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors & Agency Co. Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384 Consul Developments Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (197…
[1996] 1 AC 421
[1996] 1 AC 421 Para 1

…ing was completed Mr Brookes apparently had no further role to pay nor contribution to make. [79] Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] 1 AC 421 per Brown-Wilkinson LJ at 434.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	Brookes v Ralph & Ors [2009] QSC 416
PARTIES:	THOMAS JOSEPH BROOKES (plaintiff) v KATHLEEN MARY RALPH (first defendant) SEAN KEITH RALPH (second defendant) CANTLEY TRADING PTY LTD ACN 103 771 731 (third defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 6274 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 22 May 2009 Further submissions 27 May, 4 and 15 June 2009
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $261,237.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS – PARTICULAR CASES – where the plaintiff and the first and second defendants entered into a commercial venture – whether there was a joint venture agreement between the parties – whether the defendants are in breach of fiduciary obligations INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – INFRINGEMENT – DESIGNS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for breach of copyright in his building plans – whether the defendants have breached copyright Aberdeen Railway Co. v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Macq 461 Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 Barns v Ryan [2003] QCA 292 Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors & Agency Co. Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384 Consul Developments Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Mantonella Pty Ltd v Myles Thompson [2009] QCA 80 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] 1 AC 421 United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1 Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544
COUNSEL:	C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff LA Stephens for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Gregg Lawyers for the plaintiff Morgan Conley Solicitors for the defendants