Bureau Proberts Pty Ltd v Cottee Parker Architects Pty Ltd

Bureau Proberts Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Court for leave to amend its statement of claim against Cottee Parker Architects Pty Ltd in an action for copyright infringement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed its copyright by reproducing a substantial part of its architectural drawings in a material form. The court considered whether the proposed amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded infringement of a substantial part of the work. In particular, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was required to plead facts to show that the substantial part of the work that was alleged to have been reproduced was an original work. The court held that there was no need to plead such facts if the plaintiff pleaded facts that the work as a whole was an original work. The court also held that the plaintiff had identified the relevant work, the author of the work, and the part of the work that was alleged to have been reproduced. Therefore, the court granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.

The court reasoned that the material facts that must be pleaded in relation to an action for infringement of copyright based on the reproduction of a substantial part of a work were the identification of the work and the author of the work, and the identification of each part of the work that was alleged to constitute a substantial part of the work and which was alleged to have been reproduced in a material form by the defendant. It was not necessary to plead facts relevant to show that the part work was original. Copyright subsists in an original work, not in part of a work. Originality was an element of the creation of a work, viewed as a whole; it was not an element of the creation of a part of a work. A statement of claim need only state facts on which the plaintiff relied for alleging the work was an original work. The court also noted that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded facts that the work was an original work and had identified the part work that the plaintiff alleged the defendant had reproduced and which the plaintiff alleged constituted a substantial part of the work.

The court held that the proposed amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded infringement of a substantial part of the work. The court noted that the plaintiff had identified the relevant work, the author of the work, and the part of the work that was alleged to have been reproduced. The court also noted that the plaintiff had pleaded facts that the work was an original work. The court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to plead facts relevant to show that the part work was original. The court also held that the plaintiff had identified the work that was alleged to constitute the reproduction in a material form of the part work, and the acts by which the defendant so reproduced, or authorised another person to reproduce, the part work. Therefore, the court granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff have leave to file an amended statement of claim in the form of the proposed amended statement of claim that was item 3 of the index of the material on which the plaintiff relied at the hearing of its application for leave to file an amended statement of claim. The court also ordered that the plaintiff file and serve the amended statement of claim by 26 May 2023. The court further ordered that the matter be listed for a directions hearing at 9:30 am on 9 June 2023. The costs of the plaintiff’s application for leave to file the amended statement of claim were reserved.