EIFY Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd - [2017] NSWSC 1310

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: EIFY Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1310
Hearing dates: 03/07/2017, 04/07/2017, 05/07/2017, 06/07/2017, 07/07/2017, 10/07/2017, 11/07/2017, 12/07/2017, 13/07/2017, 14/07/2017, 17/07/2017, 18/07/2017, 19/07/2017, 20/07/2017, 21/07/2017, 31/07/2017, 01/08/2017, 02/08/2017; 03/08/2017; 04/08/2017; further written submissions 04/08/2017 and 18/08/2017
Date of orders: 28 September 2017
Decision date: 28 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: McDougall J
Decision:
Judgment in favour of all defendants. Costs to be dealt with on the papers.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – affidavit evidence – contents of documents – where admission into evidence would be unfair to the defendants – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135 – EVIDENCE – expert evidence – whether opinion wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge – Evidence Act 1995 s 79(1) –EVIDENCE — course of evidence — evidence in reply – re-opening case – where admission into evidence would be unfair to the defendants – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — pleadings — amendment — late application for amendment – where leave to amend would be unfair to the defendants and cause undue expense and delay – CONTRACT – the nature and extent of the contractual duties owed to the plaintiff – whether the defendants breached one or more of these duties – EQUITY – the nature and extent of the equitable and fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff – the nature and extent of the duty of confidence – whether the defendants breached one or more of these duties – CONSUMER LAW – whether the defendants engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s copyright protection in the various elements of an online system – whether the defendants breached the plaintiff’s copyright protection
Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC §§ 101 – 810 (2016)
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Amway Corporation v Eurway International Ltd [1974] RPC 82
A-One Accessory Imports Pty Ltd v Off Road Imports Pty Ltd & King (1996) 65 FCR 478
Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd v Del Casale 68 ISR 577
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No.2) At [86] (1993) 176 CLR 300
Bates and Partners Pty Ltd v The Law Book Company (1994) 29 IPR 11
Brand v Monks [2009] NSWSC 1454
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Coco v AN Clarke (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
Corrs Pavey Whiting and Byrne v Collector of Customs for Victoria (1987) 14 FCR 434
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) [2000] 1 WLR 2416
Exchange Telegraph v Central News [1897] 2 Ch 48
Gibson Motorsport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes (2006) 149 FCR 569
Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (2012) 200 FCR 296
Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122
Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Council for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read EIFY Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services 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: [2017] NSWSC 1310
Decision Date: 28 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

EIFY Systems Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, alleging breaches of contract, equity, consumer law, and intellectual property law. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached contractual and fiduciary duties, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and infringed the plaintiff's copyright protection in an online system. The defendants denied all claims and counterclaimed for damages.

The court had to decide various legal issues, including whether certain documents and expert evidence should be admitted under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The court also considered whether the plaintiff's late application for amendment of pleadings should be allowed, and whether the defendants breached their contractual, equitable, and fiduciary duties, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and infringed the plaintiff's copyright protection.

The court found that the admission of certain documents and expert evidence would be unfair to the defendants, and therefore, refused to admit them into evidence. The court also found that granting the plaintiff's late application for amendment of pleadings would be unfair to the defendants and cause undue expense and delay, and therefore, refused to allow the amendment. The court further found that the defendants breached their contractual and equitable duties, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and infringed the plaintiff's copyright protection. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the expert evidence that was not admitted into evidence. The court also ordered the defendants to deliver up all copies of the plaintiff's copyright-protected materials and to destroy any such materials in their possession or control.

Orders