FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Melbourne University Publishing Ltd v Williamson [2005] FCA 1910
COSTS – claim for infringement of copyright – consent judgement – no letter or other demand before action – whether respondent should pay costs
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING LIMITED & ORS v SCOTT STEPHEN WILLIAMSON
NO VID 1434 OF 2005
HEEREY J
20 DECEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 1434 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING LIMITED (ABN 82 103 214 713)
FIRST APPLICANTMcGRAW-HILL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ABN 18 000 473 674)
SECOND APPLICANTNELSON AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ABN 14 058 280 149)
THIRD APPLICANTREED INTERNATIONAL BOOKS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ABN 70 001 002 357)
FOURTH APPLICANTAND:
SCOTT STEPHEN WILLIAMSON
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 DECEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
ORDERS
Upon the respondent acknowledging to the court and the applicants that he has infringed the copyright in each of the literary works and published editions whose title appears in column 1 of Schedule 1 to the Statement of Claim in the proceeding, being a copyright of the applicant (the “relevant applicant”) whose name is set out in column 6 of Schedule 1 for that title by reproducing in a material form the whole or a substantial part of the literary work.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The court grants leave to the applicants to file and serve the amended application that was placed on the court file and served on the respondents on 14 November 2005.
2.The respondent, whether by himself or his employees, agents or howsoever otherwise be restrained from, without licence of the relevant applicants or without lawful defence, reproducing in any material form, or authorising the reproduction in any material form of, any literary work of which any applicant is the owner of the copyright.
3.If the parties are unable to agree on or before 20 January 2006 an amount to be paid by the respondent to the applicants (by way of damages including additional damages pursuant to s 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) or, at the election of the applicants, an account profits) in respect of the acknowledged infringements, the applicants may apply to the court for further orders.
4.Subject to 5 below, the respondent preserve all property in his possession relating to the acknowledge infringements including”
(a)Photocopies and electronic copies of all the works and published editions contained on the photocopy list of titles being Schedule 1 to the Statement of Claim.
(b)All accounting records, in electronic and hard from, relating to photocopying of those works and published editions and purchase orders and sales thereof.
5.The respondent deliver up on oath to the applicants’ solicitors within 30 days of the date of these orders for destruction under supervision all reproductions in any material form of the whole or any substantial part of the works (as defined in the Statement of Claim) acknowledge to be infringed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Melbourne University Publishing Ltd v Williamson 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1910
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the acts of copying and distribution constituted copyright infringement, and if so, what remedies were appropriate. The court considered the scope of the alleged infringements, including whether the copying was substantial and if the distribution was on a commercial scale. It was also necessary to determine the appropriate relief, including injunctive relief, damages, and the preservation of evidence.
The court found that the acts of copying and distribution by Mr Williamson and UNSW indeed constituted copyright infringement. The court granted an injunction to prevent further infringement without licence. It also ordered the preservation of all relevant property, including copies of the works and accounting records. The court allowed the parties time to agree on damages, with the option to apply for further orders if they could not reach an agreement. Finally, the court ordered the destruction of all infringing copies under supervision.
The court’s orders included granting leave to file an amended application, issuing an injunction against further infringements, allowing time for the parties to agree on damages, and requiring the destruction of all infringing copies. The court also directed the preservation of relevant property and documentation to aid in the determination of damages or an account of profits.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The court grants leave to the applicants to file and serve the amended application that was placed on the court file and served on the respondents on 14 November 2005.
2. The respondent, whether by himself or his employees, agents or howsoever otherwise be restrained from, without licence of the relevant applicants or without lawful defence, reproducing in any material form, or authorising the reproduction in any material form of, any literary work of which any applicant is the owner of the copyright.
3. If the parties are unable to agree on or before 20 January 2006 an amount to be paid by the respondent to the applicants (by way of damages including additional damages pursuant to s 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) or, at the election of the applicants, an account profits) in respect of the acknowledged infringements, the applicants may apply to the court for further orders.
4. Subject to 5 below, the respondent preserve all property in his possession relating to the acknowledge infringements including”
(a) Photocopies and electronic copies of all the works and published editions contained on the photocopy list of titles being Schedule 1 to the Statement of Claim.
(b) All accounting records, in electronic and hard from, relating to photocopying of those works and published editions and purchase orders and sales thereof.
5. The respondent deliver up on oath to the applicants’ solicitors within 30 days of the date of these orders for destruction under supervision all reproductions in any material form of the whole or any substantial part of the works (as defined in the Statement of Claim) acknowledge to be infringed.
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
Established by: HEEREY J
Full text does not contain this section.