RP Data Pty Limited v Hardingham & Ors; Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham & Ors

RP Data Pty Limited and Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought declarations and injunctions against Mr. Hardingham and other respondents (the respondents) concerning the use of property data. The dispute arose from the respondents' alleged unauthorised use and dissemination of property information, including sales data and valuations, which the applicants claimed was proprietary and protected by copyright. The matter was heard by Gleeson J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had infringed the copyright subsisting in the property data compiled by the applicants, and whether the respondents' actions constituted a breach of confidence. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the data, in its compiled form, possessed the necessary originality to attract copyright protection, and if the respondents had obtained the information in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and had subsequently breached that obligation.

Gleeson J reasoned that the applicants' property data, comprising a substantial compilation of information, demonstrated sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. The court found that the selection, arrangement, and presentation of the data involved a degree of skill and labour that met the threshold for copyright subsistence. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondents had acquired the data under circumstances that imposed a duty of confidence, and their subsequent use and disclosure of this information breached that duty. The court applied established principles of copyright law regarding originality and the tort of breach of confidence, including the three-part test for breach of confidence: the information must have the necessary quality of confidence, it must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and there must have been an unauthorised use or disclosure.

The court made declarations that the respondents had infringed the applicants' copyright and had breached their duty of confidence. Injunctions were granted to restrain further infringement and breach.