Microsoft Corporation v CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd

In the case of Microsoft Corporation v CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd, the primary dispute revolved around allegations of copyright infringement in computer programs, with Microsoft Corporation, the appellant, challenging the decision of the primary judge. The key legal issues included whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness due to the disallowance of questions during cross-examination of the respondents' witnesses, and whether the primary judge failed to consider the inherent improbability of the respondents' case as a whole. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge's acceptance of the respondents' witnesses' evidence was heavily influenced by their demeanour and the relevance of the lengthy delay between the hearing and the delivery of judgment.

The court found that the primary judge's rulings on evidence, including the findings that certain invoices were forgeries or not true and correct, were influenced by the denial of procedural fairness that precluded the appellants from pursuing the unpleaded fraud cause in cross-examination. Furthermore, the court held that the significant delay of almost three years from the trial to the delivery of judgment, from August 2019 to September 2022, adversely affected the primary judge's ability to properly consider the evidence, especially the inherent improbabilities in the respondents' defensive case. The appellants argued that the evidence put forward by the respondents was too reliant on cumulative coincidence and implausibility to be accepted, such as the merger of stock codes occurring on the very day of a significant purchase and a claimed power outage damaging the only hard drives containing relevant electronic records just days before a hearing.

The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and a new trial ordered. The reasoning for this decision was that the primary judge's conclusions on the evidence were products of the denial of procedural fairness and the significant delay, which compromised the judge's ability to fairly consider the evidence and the broader submission that the respondents' version of events was inherently improbable. The orders included setting aside the primary judge's judgment, ordering a new trial before a different judge of the Federal Court, reserving the costs of the trial for determination by the retrial judge, and directing the respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.