Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Lucky Homes Pty Ltd

In the case of Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Lucky Homes Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia dealt with claims of copyright infringement against Lucky Homes Pty Ltd and Mr Shafiq Mistry. Henley Arch, the plaintiff, alleged that the defendants had infringed its copyright in the Amalfi AM632 floorplan, a design for a single-storey project home, by using it in the construction of a house for the Mistrys without authorisation. The defendants raised several defences, including that the floorplan was not a substantial part of the plaintiff's work and that any infringement was innocent. The court found that the defendants had indeed infringed the plaintiff's copyright, rejecting the defences of no substantial part and innocent infringement. The court awarded Henley Arch compensatory damages of $34,400, and additional damages against Lucky Homes and Mr Shafiq Mistry of $25,000 collectively, and against Mr Mistry only of $10,000. The court declined to grant declarations and injunctions, finding no utility in such relief. Additionally, the court dismissed the cross-claims brought by the defendants, except for the cross-claim of the Mistrys against Lucky Homes and Mr Shafiq, which was allowed to a limited extent.

The court's reasoning focused on the objective similarity between the plaintiff's floorplan and the defendants' construction, as well as the reproduction of a substantial part of the plaintiff's work in the defendants' home. The court held that the three-dimensional form derived from the two-dimensional work still constituted a substantial part of the plaintiff's copyright. The court also found that the defendants had not acted innocently, as they were aware of the potential copyright issues and took steps to avoid them. The court awarded additional damages against Mr Mistry to reflect his misleading or deceptive conduct. Finally, the court held that the Copyright Act provided a regime that allowed the plaintiff to recover the full amount from both the primary infringer and those who authorised the infringement, overriding the apportionment scheme under the Wrongs Act. The court also dismissed the Mistrys' apportionment question under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The court concluded that Henley Arch had succeeded on its claims, and the cross-claims of the defendants were largely unsuccessful, with partial success for the Mistrys' cross-claim. The court made orders to reflect these reasons, including giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions on costs and any consequential orders.