FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SOLITAIRE HOMES PTY LTD v URBAN VENTURES PTY LTD & ORS | [2010] FMCA 185 |
| COPYRIGHT – Alleged infringement of copyright of project home house plans – subsistence of copyright – “substantial part” and house plans – general principles regarding damages or account of profits – cost of the proceedings a factor in the award of exemplary damages. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application to set aside Default Judgment – application granted. EVIDENCE – Application to adduce tendency evidence. |
| Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss.10, 13(1), 14(1)(b), 21(3), 31(1)(a)(i), (b), 32(3), 36(1), 115(1) - (4), 116, 126(a), 196(1), 196(3) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.97 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.7.01, 13.07 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Solitaire Homes Pty Ltd v Urban Ventures 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] FMCA 185
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to copyright infringement. The Court held that the copyright in the house plans subsisted and that Urban Ventures Pty Ltd had infringed that copyright by constructing and selling houses based on the plans. The Court held that the cost of the proceedings was a relevant factor in the award of exemplary damages. The Court held that the cross-claim against the Third Respondent and the application to adduce further evidence relating to an account of profits should be dismissed. The Court also held that the applications to adduce tendency evidence should be dismissed. The Court made orders declaring that Solitaire Homes Pty Ltd was the copyright owner of the plans for the Solitaire house, and that Urban Ventures Pty Ltd should pay damages and exemplary damages. The Court also made orders dismissing the cross-claim and the applications to adduce further evidence and tendency evidence. The Court made orders for the parties to file and serve submissions in relation to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the Applicant be declared the copyright owner of the plans for the Solitaire house, and of the dwelling known as the Solitaire house.
2.
That pursuant to section 115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968, the First Respondent pay to the Applicant damages in the sum of $10,000.
3.
That pursuant to section 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968, the First Respondent pay to the Applicant exemplary damages in the sum of $2,500.00.
4.
That the cross-claim against the Third Respondent by the First and Second Respondents be dismissed.
5.
That the Application to adduce further evidence relating to an account of profits against the Third Respondent be dismissed.
6.
That the Applications to adduce tendency evidence against, respectively, the Second Respondent (by the Applicant), and against the Third Respondent (by the Second Respondent), be dismissed.
7.
That any submissions in relation to costs be filed and served by each of the parties within 28 days of the date of these Orders.
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.