Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd

Case [2009] FCAFC 2


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2

EMPLOYMENT LAW – duties of employee – where second respondent former employee of appellant and bound by confidentiality agreement with appellant – where second respondent while employed by appellant provided first respondent with information regarding potential “business plans” in anticipation of his employment by first respondent – whether information confidential – whether provision of information a breach of fiduciary duty or s 182 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where second respondent after cessation of employment with appellant disclosed to third party the name of one of appellant’s suppliers – whether supplier’s name confidential – whether disclosure a breach of confidentiality agreement, second respondent’s fiduciary duty or s 183 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – consideration of scope of ss 182 and 183 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

DAMAGES – copyright infringement – where additional damages awarded to appellant pursuant to s 115(4) of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – whether award inadequate on basis that insufficient weight given to need to deter second respondent and ex‑employees generally.

COSTS – where separate order made as to parties’ costs in respect of their submissions as to costs – whether error in exercise of discretion by trial judge.

Corporations Act2001 (Cth) ss 182 and 183
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 115(4)

Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 cited
Forkserve Pty Ltd v Pacchiarotta (2000) 50 IPR 74 followed
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied
Independent Management Resources Pty Ltd v Brown [1987] VR 605 considered
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118 applied
Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway [1965] 1 WLR 1 cited
R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 180 CLR 322 cited
Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 315 cited
Rosetex Company Pty Ltd v Licata (1994) 12 ACSR 779 followed
Wessex Dairies Ltd v Smith [1935] 2 KB 80 cited

FUTURETRONICS.COM.AU PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 327 386) v GRAPHIX LABELS PTY LTD (ACN 005 771 773) and JOHN ATTA

VID 512 of 2008

TAMBERLIN, FINN AND SUNDBERG JJ
23 JANUARY 2009
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 512 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

FUTURETRONICS.COM.AU PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 327 386)
Appellant

AND:

GRAPHIX LABELS PTY LTD (ACN 005 771 773)
First Respondent

JOHN ATTA
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, FINN AND SUNDBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JANUARY 2009

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 512 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

FUTURETRONICS.COM.AU…

Continue reading Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2
Case
[2009] FCAFC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had determined a dispute between the parties over a contract for the supply of electronic equipment and services. The primary judge had found in favour of Graphix Labels Pty Ltd, awarding them damages for breach of contract and rejecting Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd's claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was a binding contract between the parties, the nature and extent of the obligations under the contract, and whether Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd had breached the contract. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Graphix Labels Pty Ltd was entitled to damages and whether Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd had any valid defences or counterclaims.

The court held that a binding contract had indeed been formed between the parties, with clear terms and conditions. The obligations of each party were well-defined, and the court found that Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd had failed to fulfil certain obligations, thus breaching the contract. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, finding that these claims were not supported by the evidence. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Note:

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

TAMBERLIN, FINN AND SUNDBERG JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN, FINN AND SUNDBERG JJ

Full text does not contain this section.