Legal Research
Cases
Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle

Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle

Case [2007] FMCA 1147 19 July 2007

Injunction

Breach of Contract

Compensatory Damages

Intellectual Property Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CENTRESTAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD v RIEDLE

[2007] FMCA 1147

COPYRIGHT – Computer program – ownership – whether respondent an employee or an independent contractor – whether implied term regarding ownership – whether applicant owned copyright in earlier version of program.

CONTRACT – Implied terms – issues of fact.

Copyright Act 1968, ss.10, 14, 31, 35(2), 35(6), 126, 196(1), 196(3)

Federal Court Rules 1979, O.11 rr.10, 13(3), 18
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.1.03, 1.05, 1.06

Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd (1963) 80 WN (NSW) 1578
Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] 1 ER 241
Bungay Pty Ltd v Spear (VSC, Byrne J, No 4505/91, 3 October 1991, unreported)
D & D Tolhurst Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (1997) 38 ATR 1001
De Garis & Anor v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 292
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett & Ors (1973) 129 CLR 395
Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
Pacific Software Technology Ltd v Perry Group Ltd [2004] 1 NZLR 164
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) (1997) 37 ATR 528
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Vabu Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 33 ATR 537
Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561

Applicant:

CENTRESTAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 107 072 239)

Respondent:

TONY RIEDLE

Cross Claimant:

TONY RIEDLE

Cross-respondent:

CENTRESTAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 107 072 239)

File number:

MLG 227 of 2006

Judgment of:

Riley FM

Hearing dates:

21, 22, 23 May 2007 and 12, 13, 14 June 2007

Date of last submission:

14 June 2007

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

19 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Dr R Dean

Solicitors for the Applicant:

R & G Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Michael Rivette

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Middletons

ORDERS

The applicant's application filed on 14 February 2006 be dismissed.
The applicant (cross respondent) whether by itself, its directors, servants, agents or otherwise be restrained from reproducing the source code in the program written by the respondent in any material form.
The applicant pay the respondent the sum of $275 for work done.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 227 of 2006

CENTRESTAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 107 072 239)

Applicant

And

TONY RIEDLE

Respondent

And

TONY RIEDLE

Cross-claimant

And

CENTRESTAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 107 072 239)

Cross-respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applications

In this proceeding, the applicant seeks:
a)an order that the respondent delivers up a computer program known as the updated home collection program (“The Program”), its source code and any associated material in whatever form;
b)an order that the respondent destroys any electronic copies of The Program in his possession;
c)an injunction restraining the respondent from copying, using or disclosing The Program, its source code and any associated material in whatever form;
d)a declaration that the…

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 Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle

Details

AGLC: Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle [2007] FMCA 1147
Case: [2007] FMCA 1147
Decision Date: 19 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Centrestage Management Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought relief against Riedle, the respondent, in a dispute over source code used in a computer program. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant claimed that the source code had been improperly used or reproduced without authorisation. In response, the respondent argued that the applicant had no right to the source code and sought relief against its reproduction.

The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had the right to reproduce or use the source code in question. The court needed to determine the ownership of the source code and whether the respondent had breached any rights of the applicant by using it. Additionally, the court had to assess the respondent's counterclaim for payment of work done.

The court found that the applicant had no ownership rights over the source code, which belonged to the respondent. The court determined that the applicant had no lawful basis to reproduce or use the source code. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application and granted the respondent's counterclaim for payment of $275 for work done. The court also issued an order restraining the applicant from reproducing the source code in any material form.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant's application filed on 14 February 2006 be dismissed.

The applicant (cross respondent) whether by itself, its directors, servants, agents or otherwise be restrained from reproducing the source code in the program written by the respondent in any material form.

The applicant pay the respondent the sum of $275 for work done.

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

Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle [2007] FMCA 1147

Most Recent Citation

Metstech Pty Ltd v Park [2022] NSWSC 1667

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Metstech Pty Ltd v Park
[2022] NSWSC 1667

…e Management Pty Ltd v Riedle (2008) 170 FCR 298; [2008] FCA 938 Challenger Property Asset Management Pty Ltd v Stonnington City Council (2011) 34 VR 445; [2011] VSC 184 Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) 1A IPR 587 Commissioner of Taxation v Iannuzzi (No 2) [2019] FCA 1818 Dais Studio Pty Ltd v Bullet Creative P…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd
[1990] FCA 352

…ngay Pty Ltd v Spear (VSC, Byrne J, No 4505/91, 3 October 1991, unreported) D & D Tolhurst Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (1997) 38 ATR 1001 De Garis & Anor v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 292 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett & Ors (1973) 129 CLR 395 Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 17…
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd
[1986] HCA 1 Para 5

…ol over the way in which work was to be done was regarded as almost determinative. However, Mason CJ said in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 24: [T]he existence of control, whilst significant, is not the sole criterion by which to gauge whether a relationship is one of employment. The a…
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett
[1973] HCA 49 Para 5

…red in the determination of that question: Queensland Stations Pty. Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1945) 70 CLR 539, at p. 552; Zuijs' Case; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett (1973) 129 CLR, at p 401; Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210, at p. 218. Other relevant matters include, but are not limited to, t…
Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co
[1963] HCA 26 Para 5

…5) 70 CLR 539, at p. 552; Zuijs' Case; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett (1973) 129 CLR, at p 401; Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210, at p. 218. Other relevant matters include, but are not limited to, the mode of remuneration, the provision and maintenance of equipment, the obligat…
Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd
[1955] HCA 73 Para 9

…he manner of work is not taken as being a significant factor against the proposition that the person is an employee: Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561 at 571.…
Queensland Stations Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1945] HCA 13 Para 5

…f a number of indicia which must be considered in the determination of that question: Queensland Stations Pty. Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1945) 70 CLR 539, at p. 552; Zuijs' Case; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Barrett (1973) 129 CLR, at p 401; Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CL…
[1968] 2 QB 497
[1968] 2 QB 497 Para 6

…iers’ expenses are very considerable. To quote McKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 at 526: “the ownership of the assets, the chance of profit and the risk of loss in the business of carriage are his and not the company’s”, a consideration…
[1969] 2 QB 173
[1969] 2 QB 173 Para 7

…In the United Kingdom, the fundamental test has been described as one of economic reality. In Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 at 184, Cook J said the following: In United States of America v Silk (1946) 331 US 704, the question was whether certain men were “employees” within…
[2004] 1 NZLR 164
[2004] 1 NZLR 164 Para 3

…The applicant also referred to the New Zealand case of Pacific Software Technology Ltd v Perry Group Ltd [2004] 1 NZLR 164. In that case it was ordered that an independent contractor deliver up the source code for a particular computer program it had written. However, that result was apparently dependent in part on…
United States of America v Silk
(1946) 331 US 704 Para 7

…ity. In Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 at 184, Cook J said the following: In United States of America v Silk (1946) 331 US 704, the question was whether certain men were “employees” within the meaning of that word in the Social Security Act, 1935. The judges of the Supreme Co…
[1973] 1 ER 241
[1973] 1 ER 241 Para 8

…Similarly, in Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] 1 ER 241 at 250, the Court said: The test which emerges from the authorities seems to me, as Denning LJ said [footnote: in Stephen Jordan and Harrison Ltd v Macdonald and Evans [1952] 1 TLR at 111], whether on the one hand the employee is employed as part of the business…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
10, 126, 14, 196(1), 196(3), 31, 35(2),... 9 mentions (from Para 1)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
1.03, 1.05, 1.06 4 mentions (from Para 6)
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 5)