Chou v Metstech Pty Limited

The case of Chou v Metstech Pty Limited involved a dispute over the ownership and subsistence of copyright in relation to various works and systems developed by Metstech Pty Limited. The appeal and cross-appeals were brought by the original defendants in the proceeding below, Mr Park, and the Chou parties against the primary judge's decision. The defendants challenged the declaration of copyright ownership, the order for delivery up of the infringing works, the inquiry into damages, and the costs awarded. The plaintiffs, Metstech and others, cross-appealed against the costs awarded.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in making a declaration regarding the copyright subsistence and ownership, and the order for delivery up of the infringing works. It also had to consider whether the plaintiffs failed to join a necessary party, whether the declaration was an order in rem, and if the primary judge's failure to make certain findings constituted an error. Additionally, the court had to decide whether there was a prima facie case for the reasonable probability of damages, and if damages were an available remedy for breach of the equitable obligation of confidence. The court further needed to assess if the primary judge's exercise of discretion in awarding costs disclosed any appellable error.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in making the declaration and order for delivery up, as no objection to the making or form of the declaration was raised before the primary judge. The court also determined that the plaintiffs did not fail to join a necessary party, as Yokao was not a necessary party to the proceedings. The declaration was not an order in rem, and the primary judge's failure to make certain findings did not constitute an error. The court held that there was a prima facie case for the reasonable probability of damages, and that damages were an available remedy for breach of the equitable obligation of confidence. Lastly, the court found that there was no appellable error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion in awarding costs.

The appeal and cross-appeals were dismissed, and the declaration made by the primary judge was varied to clarify the scope of the copyright ownership. The parties were required to file and serve written submissions and any affidavits on the question of costs of the appeal by specified dates. The final orders included the dismissal of the appeals and cross-appeals, variation of the declaration, and the requirement for the parties to file submissions regarding the costs of the appeal.