Devefi Pty Ltd v Mateffy Perl Nagy Pty Ltd

Devefi Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of the Federal Court, which found that it had infringed copyright in architectural plans created by Mateffy Perl Nagy Pty Ltd. The appeal raised questions concerning the construction of an express contractual licence and whether an implied licence should be recognised in favour of a third party who used the plans to complete a building. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the architect was estopped from denying infringement by the third party.

The court considered the language of the licence agreement and concluded that it did not extend to allowing the third party to use the plans to complete the building. The court found that an implied licence was not warranted in this case, as it would contradict the clear terms of the express licence. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the architect was estopped from denying infringement by the third party, finding that estoppel could not be applied in this context to alter the terms of the contractual licence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court's decision emphasised the importance of clear contractual language in defining the scope of copyright licences and the limited circumstances in which estoppel may apply to modify contractual terms.