Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 70 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 138

COPYRIGHT – infringement – floor plans of project homes – reproduction of whole or substantial part – whether sufficient similarity between copyright plan and allegedly infringing plan – whether case one of copying of whole or of substantial part – meaning of “substantial part” – degree of protection to be afforded to floor plans of project homes – relevance of common features possessed by such plans – two aspects of reproduction, that is, subjective copying and sufficient objective similarity – relevance of finding of actual copying – distinction between idea and expression – role of appellate court in reviewing finding of trial judge that plans not sufficiently similar to amount to “reproduction”.

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 14(1), 31(1)(b)(i)

S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466, referred to
Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd [1964-5] NSWR 229, considered
Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigal Homes Pty Ltd [1970] 3 NSWLR 265, referred to Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 2 NSWLR 278, applied
Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall (1990) 18 IPR 481 (FCA/Pincus J), referred to
University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601, considered
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273, considered
Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2] (1993) 176 CLR 300, referred to
Warwick Film Productions Ltd v Eisinger [1969] 1 Ch 508, distinguished
Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall (1990) 18 IPR 490 (FC), referred to
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Mancuso Investments Pty Ltd (1988) AIPC 90-488, referred to
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Masterton Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 447, considered
Kenrick & Co v Lawrence & Co (1890) 25 QBD 99, distinguished
Beazley Homes Ltd v Arrowsmith [1978] 1 NZLR 394, considered
Hanfstaengl v Baines & Co [1895] AC 20, referred to
MacMillan & Co Ltd v Cooper (1923) 40 TLR 186, considered
Blackie & Sons Ltd v Lothian Book Publishing Co Pty Ltd (1921) 29 CLR 396, applied
Commissioner of Taxation v Chubb Australia Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 557 at 560, referred to
Biogen Inc v Medeva PLC [1997] RPC 1 at 45, referred to
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 98 ATC 4768 at 4779 referred to
S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Lifesaver Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-667 at 42,505, referred to
Preston Erection Pty Limited v Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Limited [1998] FCA 1615 at 9-10, referred to
Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Karavas (1991) 23 NSWLR 256, referred to
George Mitchell (Chesterhall Ltd) v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803 at 816, referred to
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479, referred to
Warren v Coombes (1979)…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd 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
[1999] FCA 138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eagle Homes Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of the primary judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found them liable for damages for breach of contract and ordered them to pay the respondent, Austec Homes Pty Ltd, certain costs. The central issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in finding Eagle Homes Pty Ltd liable for the breach of contract and, if so, what should be the appropriate remedy. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and considered the applicable legal principles. The Full Court found that the primary judge had erred in finding Eagle Homes Pty Ltd liable for the breach of contract. The court held that the respondent had failed to establish that the appellant had breached the contract, and that the evidence did not support the primary judge's finding. The Full Court set aside the orders made on 1 December 1997 and remitted the matter to the primary judge for determination in accordance with their reasons. The Full Court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made on 1 December 1997 in proceeding NG 355 of 1996 be set aside, and in lieu thereof, the respondent pay the costs of the appellant as applicant in that proceeding.

3. The matter be remitted to the primary judge in proceeding NG 355 of 1996 for determination in accordance with the reasons of the Full Court delivered on 22 February 1999 in this proceeding.

4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

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.