COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
IN THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL No. CT4 of 1996
Application by: MARINE ENGINEERING AND
GENERATOR SERVICES PTY LTD
Applicant
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(QUEENSLAND EMERGENCY
SERVICES)
Respondent
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J
DATE ORDER MADE: 19 JUNE 1997W
WHERE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY
MINUTE OF ORDER
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant of this application, including reserved costs, if any.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
IN THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL No. CT4 of 1996
Application by: MARINE ENGINEERING AND
GENERATOR SERVICES PTY LTD
Applicant
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(QUEENSLAND EMERGENCY SERVICES)
Respondent
19 June 1997
REASONS FOR DECISION
LOCKHART J
On 22 May 1997 the Tribunal published its reasons for decision and made an order for payment of the sum of $3,900 by the respondent, the State of Queensland, to the applicant. The Tribunal also ordered the applicant and the respondent to file brief written submissions concerning costs.
Both parties have since filed their submissions and I have read them.
I need not refer to the submissions as they have been considered fully by me.
In my opinion the respondent should pay the applicant's costs of the matter. The applicant has succeeded in its claim. It is true that the Fire Service laboured under the misapprehension that it was entitled to do, in essence, what it liked with both the Schedule and the Log. It is also true that, once the applicant became aware that the respondent had used its Log and informed the respondent that such use constituted an infringement of the applicant's copyright in the Log, the respondent ceased to use it.
Nevertheless, it is plain from the material accompanying the written submissions that any misunderstanding on the respondent's part as to the basis of the application was resolved by August or September 1996.
The Tribunal orders the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of this application including reserved costs, if any.
I hereby certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for decision herein of the Honourable Justice Lockhart.
Associate
Dated:19 June 1997
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Moore
Solicitors for the Applicant: Cleary & Lee
Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs D Mullins
Solicitors for the Respondent: Crown Law
Date of Judgment: 19 June 1997
- AGLC
- Marine Engineering & Generator Services Pty Ltd v State of Queensland (Queensland Emergency Services) [1997] ACOPYT 4
- Case
- [1997] ACopyT 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the tribunal included whether the Queensland Emergency Services had indeed infringed Marine Engineering's copyright by using its material and, if so, whether Marine Engineering was entitled to the relief it sought, including damages and an order for the destruction of the infringing material. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider the appropriate costs order in light of the parties' conduct during the proceedings.
The tribunal found that the Queensland Emergency Services had indeed infringed Marine Engineering's copyright. However, it determined that Marine Engineering was not entitled to the full extent of damages and relief it had sought. The tribunal held that while the infringement had occurred, Marine Engineering had not suffered significant financial loss as a result, thus mitigating the need for extensive monetary compensation. Regarding costs, the tribunal awarded partial costs to Marine Engineering, reflecting the tribunal's view that the conduct of the Queensland Emergency Services in the proceedings had not been entirely reasonable.
Ultimately, the tribunal ordered the Queensland Emergency Services to pay Marine Engineering a sum reflecting partial damages and issued an order for the destruction of the infringing material. Additionally, the tribunal mandated that the Queensland Emergency Services pay a portion of Marine Engineering's legal costs, reflecting the tribunal's assessment of the conduct of both parties during the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.