Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton - [2022] QDC 116

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments
Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116
PARTIES: LOOK DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 130 652 701)
(plaintiff)
v
EDGE DEVELOPMENTS (QLD) PTY LTD
(ACN 163 938 207)
(first defendant)
and
FIONA FLATON and PHILIP FLATON
(second defendants)
FILE NO: D80 of 2017
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Claim
ORIGINATING Maroochydore
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 20 May 2022
DELIVERED AT: Maroochydore
HEARING DATE: 25 and 26 August 2020
JUDGE: Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The second defendants are to pay the amount of $500.00 to the plaintiff, as damages pursuant to s 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
CATCHWORDS: COPYRIGHT – whether copyright subsists in plans and
drawings of a project homebuilder and in a subsequent home

built in conformity with those plans – whether copyright is the property of the plaintiff – infringement – whether there has been substantial reproduction or copying – whether there was authorisation of the infringement – damages for lost commercial opportunity or otherwise – additional damages
under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
LEGISLATION: Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 10, 21, 31, 32, 35, 36, 115
CASES: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker
Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 2 NSWLR 278
Carlisle County Homes Pty Ltd v Brown & Residential
Developments Mackay Pty Ltd [1999] QDC 284
Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR
419
Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Luckey Homes Pty Ltd [2016] FCA
IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 239
CLR 458
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd & Ors v D&F Mancuso Investments
Pty Ltd (1988) AIPC 90-488
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [No 2] (2012) 248 CLR
42.
Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78
Vanwake Investments Pty Ltd v New-Stat Nominees Pty Ltd &
Ors [2005] QDC 57
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum N.L. (1994) 179 CLR 332
S.W. Hart & Co. Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems
[1985] 159 CLR 466
University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR
1
COUNSEL: M White for the plaintiff
R M De Luchi for the second defendants
SOLICITORS: Butler McDermott Lawyers for the plaintiff
Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the second
defendants
Introduction

The plaintiff is a project home builder trading as “Coast Life Homes”. On
17 May 2015 the second defendants (or at least Mrs Flaton) visited the plaintiff’s
display home at Bells Reach and met with the managing director of the plaintiff, Mr
Kay.
Arising from that and subsequent interactions between Mr Kay and the second
defendants, is the claim made by the plaintiff for the following relief:

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright
subsisting in each of the Coast Life Home’s plans;
2. Damages pursuant to section 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) for infringement of copyright in the sum of $40,000;
3. Further, additional damages pursuant to section 115(4)…

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 Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty... 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: [2022] QDC 116
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Look Design and Development Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Edge Developments Pty Ltd and Flaton, asserting that the defendants had infringed on their copyright by using Look Design's architectural plans without authorisation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the central issue revolved around whether the copyright in Look Design's architectural plans was valid and whether the defendants had indeed infringed upon that copyright.

The court had to address two primary legal issues: first, whether copyright subsisted in the architectural plans created by Look Design, and second, whether the defendants had infringed upon that copyright by authorising the reproduction and construction of a house based on Look Design's plans. The court examined the originality and fixed nature of Look Design's plans to determine if they were eligible for copyright protection. Furthermore, it evaluated whether the defendants' actions constituted an unauthorised reproduction and construction of the plans, thereby infringing on Look Design's exclusive rights.

In its reasoning, the court found that Look Design's architectural plans did indeed constitute original works fixed in a tangible medium, thereby qualifying for copyright protection. The court concluded that the second defendants had authorised the reproduction and use of Look Design's plans, resulting in infringement. However, the court declined to award additional damages beyond the statutory minimum, considering deterrence and the specific circumstances of the case. The court awarded Look Design $500.00 in damages under section 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), providing relief for the infringement but refraining from imposing further penalties. The parties were given an opportunity to address the form of the final orders, including interest and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The second defendants are to pay the amount of $500.00 to the plaintiff, as damages pursuant to s 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

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

In these circumstances and whilst the situation may well have been different in respect of the first defendant, it is not appropriate to award any additional damages against the second defendants by way seeking deterrence of similar infringements, or otherwise pursuant to s 115(4) of the Copyright Act. Conclusion The conclusion is that upon the findings that there has been infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the Revision B Plan, by the second defendants’ authorisation of the reproduction of that plan by the first defendant and construction of a house in accordance with that reproduced plan on the second defendants’ land, there will be an award of the amount of $500.00 to the plaintiff, as damages pursuant to s 115(2) of the Copyright Act. Otherwise, the parties will be given an opportunity to be heard as to the form of final orders, including as to interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments
Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116
PARTIES:	LOOK DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 130 652 701)
(plaintiff)
v EDGE DEVELOPMENTS (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 163 938 207)
(first defendant)
and FIONA FLATON and PHILIP FLATON
(second defendants)
FILE NO:	D80 of 2017
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING	Maroochydore
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	25 and 26 August 2020
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	The second defendants are to pay the amount of $500.00 to the plaintiff, as damages pursuant to s 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
CATCHWORDS:	COPYRIGHT – whether copyright subsists in plans and
drawings of a project homebuilder and in a subsequent home
built in conformity with those plans – whether copyright is the property of the plaintiff – infringement – whether there has been substantial reproduction or copying – whether there was authorisation of the infringement – damages for lost commercial opportunity or otherwise – additional damages
under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
LEGISLATION:	Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 10, 21, 31, 32, 35, 36, 115
CASES:	Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker
Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 2 NSWLR 278
Carlisle County Homes Pty Ltd v Brown & Residential
Developments Mackay Pty Ltd [1999] QDC 284 Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 419 Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Luckey Homes Pty Ltd [2016] FCA IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 458
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd & Ors v D&F Mancuso Investments
Pty Ltd (1988) AIPC 90-488 Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [No 2] (2012) 248 CLR 42. Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78
Vanwake Investments Pty Ltd v New-Stat Nominees Pty Ltd &
Ors [2005] QDC 57 Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum N.L. (1994) 179 CLR 332
S.W. Hart & Co. Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems
[1985] 159 CLR 466 University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1
COUNSEL:	M White for the plaintiff R M De Luchi for the second defendants
SOLICITORS:	Butler McDermott Lawyers for the plaintiff Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the second defendants

“1.	A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright
subsisting in each of the Coast Life Home’s plans;