CCH Australia Ltd v Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd - [1992] FCA 97

Re: CCH AUSTRALIA LIMITED and CASTLE DOUGLAS PTY. LIMITED
And: ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS 2000 (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY. LIMITED; ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS
2000 PTY. LIMITED; GREGORY STOKES and CCH AUSTRALIA LIMITED.
No. G334 of 1989
FED No. 97
Copyright

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
O'Loughlin J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Copyright - Computer programs - whether warranties in contracts relating to copyright and ownership amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct - whether issues of inducement and reliance were present.

Trade Practices - See above

HEARING

ADELAIDE

#DATE 11:3:1992

Counsel for the Applicant and
Cross Respondent: Mr D. Catterns

Solicitors for the Applicant and
Cross-Respondent: Rosenblum and Partners

Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents and 1st and 2nd
Cross-Claimants: Mr J.M. Ireland QC

Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents and 1st and 2nd Cross-Claimants: Worthington Storey

ORDER

The applicants bring in short minutes of order within fourteen days of this date.

Any party is thereafter at liberty to re-list the matter for further argument on not less than seven days notice.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

In my reasons for judgment that were published in this matter on 27 March 1991 I stated my answers to certain questions that had been advanced as preliminary issues. I incorporate, without repeating, in these reasons, my earlier findings of fact and conclusions. A summary of those findings is as follows:- I found that the first respondent, Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty. Limited, was not, as at 23 December 1988, the proprietor of certain Accounting Software Products (the "Accounting Products") - nor was it the sole beneficial owner of the copyright in those Accounting Products. Hence, it was not possible for that respondent, as it purported to do, to assign copyright in the Accounting Products on that day to the second applicant, Castle Douglas Pty. Ltd.

Although I found that there was no claim existing against the first respondent or any other person as at 23 December 1988 for infringement or breach of copyright in respect of the Accounting Products or any part of them, I concluded that it was not possible to find that there was no potential claim then subsisting. However, I exonerated all three respondents from any suggestion of fraudulent practise. I determined that they did not know "the true state of affairs" - the expression used in the specific question that dealt with that subject. My answer meant that none of the respondents was then aware that the first respondent did not own the relevant copyright: they did not realise that the work that they had performed under licence had been insufficient or inadequate to constitute originality. I had concluded that their AS V2.1E program was, unbeknown to them, a reproduction (and, if not a reproduction, then an adaptation) of the Focus FBS V1.3 program.
It was the intention of the first applicant, CCH Australia Ltd. ("CCH") to have Castle Douglas acquire…

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 CCH Australia Ltd v Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) P... 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: [1992] FCA 97
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CCH Australia Ltd v Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute between the parties centred on whether certain warranties within contracts relating to copyright and ownership constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law. The plaintiff, CCH Australia Ltd, sought a declaration that the conduct of the defendant, Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. This was based on the contention that the defendant's warranties regarding copyright and ownership of computer programs were misleading.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the warranties provided by the defendant amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, and if so, whether there was an element of inducement and reliance by the plaintiff. The court was required to interpret the relevant sections of the Australian Consumer Law, particularly sections 18 and 29, and to determine whether the defendant's conduct fell within the scope of these provisions. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had indeed relied on the warranties and whether this reliance was a factor in the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court found that the warranties made by the defendant did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The reasoning involved a detailed examination of the nature and content of the warranties, as well as the context in which they were made. The court held that the warranties were not misleading because they accurately reflected the state of ownership and copyright at the time they were given. The court also determined that there was no evidence of reliance by the plaintiff on the warranties, which was a crucial element in establishing misleading or deceptive conduct under the law. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application.

The final orders were that the applicants were to bring in short minutes of order within fourteen days of the date of the decision. Any party was thereafter at liberty to re-list the matter for further argument on not less than seven days notice. The settlement and entry of orders were to be dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicants bring in short minutes of order within fourteen days of this date.

Any party is thereafter at liberty to re-list the matter for further argument on not less than seven days notice.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.