Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning copyright infringement and apprehended bias. The dispute arose between Concrete Pty Ltd ("Concrete"), the purchaser of a development site, and Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd ("Parramatta Design"), the architectural firm that had prepared drawings for the site. Parramatta Design, through its sole director and shareholder Mr Ghassan Fares, had formed a joint venture with Landmark Building Developments Pty Ltd ("Landmark"), also directed by Mr Fares, and Toyama Pty Ltd ("Toyama") to purchase and develop the site. Parramatta Design had prepared architectural plans for the development, for which Landmark and Toyama paid $27,000. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the joint venturers, leading to the sale of the site by trustees for sale to Concrete. Concrete alleged it had an implied licence to use the architectural plans, while Parramatta Design asserted copyright infringement.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether Concrete possessed an implied licence to use the architectural plans and drawings prepared by Parramatta Design for the development of the Nelson Bay site, and whether the conduct of the primary judge gave rise to a case of apprehended bias, thereby causing the trial to miscarry. Concrete also sought relief under section 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) for alleged unjustifiable threats of copyright infringement proceedings made by Parramatta Design. Parramatta Design, in turn, cross-claimed for copyright infringement, arguing that no payment had been made for the drawings, thus precluding their use without infringement.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Court found that the Full Court had erred in its determination. While the specific reasoning regarding the implied licence and apprehended bias is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the High Court determined that the appeal to the Federal Court should have been dismissed. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court for determination of the quantum of damages, and leave was granted to the respondents to file a cross-appeal, which was subsequently dismissed.