Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v LED Builders Pty Ltd - [1996] FCA 171

CATCHWORDS

COPYRIGHT - whether infringement - whether copying from drawings and brochures of plans for project houses.

EVIDENCE - proof of particular matters - chronological tracing of provenance of plans - witnesses - credibility - adverse finding on a witness's credibility at trial, notwithstanding demeanour, because of objective factors.

EQUITY - laches, acquiescence and delay - whether 'something beyond mere delay' encouraged belief in appellants of no intent of respondent to rely on strict rights, resulting in prejudice - whether delay created disadvantage by impeding recollection of witnesses.

Copyright Act 1968: s. 115

MASTERTON HOMES PTY LIMITED, MASTERTON HOMES (NSW) PTY LIMITED v L E D BUILDERS PTY LIMITED

G 914 of 1994

LOCKHART, WILCOX and BEAZLEY JJ.
SYDNEY
20 MARCH 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    No. G 914 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:MASTERTON HOMES PTY LIMITED
First Appellant

MASTERTON HOMES (NSW) PTY LIMITED
Second Appellant

AND:L E D BUILDERS PTY LIMITED
Respondent

COURT:    Lockhart, Wilcox and Beazley JJ.
DATE:     20 March 1996
PLACE:    Sydney

MINUTE OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellants pay the costs of the respondent of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    No. G 914 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:MASTERTON HOMES PTY LIMITED
First Appellant

MASTERTON HOMES (NSW) PTY LIMITED
Second Appellant

AND:L E D BUILDERS PTY LIMITED
Respondent

COURT: Lockhart, Wilcox and Beazley JJ.
DATE: 20 March 1996
PLACE: Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOCKHART J.
This appeal from the judgment of a single judge of the Court (Sheppard J.) turns on questions of fact. His Honour held that the appellants (it is unnecessary to distinguish between them) infringed the respondent's copyright in its plans of a project house by copying them to design a project house which came to compete with the respondent's house.

There was an issue at the trial of whether copyright subsisted in the respondent's drawings for what is known as the respondent's 'Essington' range of houses. However, it was conceded on the appeal that his Honour's findings that copyright did subsist in those drawings should not be disturbed.
Central to the case at the trial was the question of the credibility of the principal witness, and chief executive of the appellants, Mr W J Masterton. His Honour did not accept his evidence as credible. This finding was attacked on appeal; and the appeal was conducted on the basis that if his Honour's findings with respect to Mr Masterton's credit were not reversed the appeal must fail, except for the second issue in the case, namely: whether the respondent should be denied relief for the appellants' infringement of…

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 Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v LED Builders 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: [1996] FCA 171
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v LED Builders Pty Ltd was heard by Lockhart, Wilcox and Beazley JJ in the Federal Court of Australia, Sydney, on 20 March 1996. The appeal arose from a decision of Sheppard J that the appellants, Masterton Homes Pty Ltd and Masterton Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd, had infringed the respondent's, LED Builders Pty Limited, copyright in the plans for its project houses by copying them. The appeal was dismissed by the Full Court, with the appellants ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. The key issues on appeal were whether the appellants had infringed the respondent's copyright, and whether the respondent's delay in taking action should deny it relief. The Full Court found that the primary Judge's findings on both issues were correct. It held that the appellants had infringed the respondent's copyright by copying its plans, and that the respondent's delay in taking action did not deny it relief. The Full Court found that the appellants had copied the respondent's plans, and that the appellants' principal witness, Mr Masterton, had deliberately misled the Court on this issue. The Court held that the respondent had not acted in such a way as to encourage the appellants to believe that it would not enforce its rights. The Court also held that the respondent's delay did not prejudice the appellants, as they had no evidence that the respondent would not enforce its rights. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders