Sports Data Pty Ltd v Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FCA 595

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sports Data Pty Ltd v Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 595

Citation: Sports Data Pty Ltd v Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 595
Parties: SPORTS DATA PTY LTD (ACN 093 982 300) v PROZONE SPORTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 167 167 142)
File number: NSD 461 of 2014
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 6 June 2014
Catchwords:

COPYRIGHT – application for injunctions restraining the respondent from infringing the applicant’s copyright – relevant principles – whether the applicant’s copyright subsists – whether the applicant’s copyright has been infringed

EQUITY – application for injunctions restraining the respondent from using, copying or dealing in any way with the applicant’s confidential information – relevant principles – whether the applicant’s information is confidential – whether there has been unauthorised use of the applicant’s confidential information

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunction – relevant principles
Legislation: Copyright Act1968  
Cases cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 at 129

           CA Inc v ISI Pty Limited (2012) 201 FCR 23

Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148

           Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41

           Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39

Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434
Dynamic Supplies v Tonnex (2011) 91 IPR 488
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 189 FCR 109
IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 458
John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465
O’Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 150 CLR 310
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Retractable Technologies Inc v Occupational and Medical Innovations Ltd (2007) 72 IPR 58
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc. (2011) 217 FCR 238
Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339

           SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466

Terrapin Ltd v Builders’ Supply Co [1967] RPC 375

Date of hearing: 28 and 29 May 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchword
Number of paragraphs: 131
Counsel for the Applicant: DR Sibtain with L Barnett and R White
Solicitor for the Applicant: HWL Ebsworth
Counsel for the Respondent: R Webb SC with JS Cooke
Solicitor for the Respondent: Johnson Winter Slattery

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 461 of 2014
BETWEEN:

SPORTS DATA PTY LTD (ACN 093 982 300)
Applicant
AND:

PROZONE SPORTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 167 167 142)
Respondent

JUDGE:

WIGNEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application…

Continue reading Sports Data Pty Ltd v Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sports Data Pty Ltd v Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 595
Case
[2014] FCA 595
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sports Data Pty Ltd brought an action against Prozone Sports Australia Pty Ltd, seeking interlocutory relief in the form of injunctions and preliminary discovery. The dispute revolves around the alleged breach of confidence and copyright infringement by Prozone. Sports Data claims that Prozone unlawfully accessed and used its confidential data and intellectual property related to rugby league statistics and match footage. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues before the court were whether Sports Data had established a prima facie case for breach of confidence or copyright infringement, and if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the sought injunctive relief.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that Sports Data had not made out a prima facie case for either breach of confidence or copyright infringement. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims, and even if a prima facie case had been established, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunctions. The court was not convinced that irreparable harm would result from the denial of the injunctions, nor that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Additionally, the court found that Prozone, as well as third parties like the NRL and NRL Clubs, would suffer significant prejudice if the injunctions were granted. Consequently, the application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.

In its judgment, the court noted that the application for preliminary discovery had not been adequately addressed during the hearing. The court proposed to adjourn this aspect of the application for further directions, suggesting that it be raised with the relevant docket judge at the first directions hearing or, if necessary, approached the docket judge’s associate for an earlier listing. This decision underscores the court's approach to managing interlocutory applications efficiently while ensuring that all aspects of the proceedings are adequately considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Where the expressions “prima facie case” and the “balance of convenience” are used in this judgment, they are used as shorthand expressions for the principles just outlined.Facts and evidence relevant to the causes of action Both Sports Data and Prozone rely on relatively voluminous affidavits and documentary evidence. Given the interlocutory nature of the relief sought there was only limited cross examination of some of the affidavit deponents. Whilst there is little dispute concerning the relevant primary facts, the inferences or conclusions that can or should be drawn from the primary facts are hotly contested. Given the relatively urgent nature of the relief sought and the necessarily short time between the interlocutory hearing and judgment, it is not possible to set out the evidence at length. Sports Data relies primarily on the evidence of its sole director and shareholder Mr Andrew Moufarrige. According to Mr Moufarrige, Sports Data was incorporated and commenced business in 2000. He describes the business as involving the provision of a coaching and performance analysis reporting system. The system involves the delivery of detailed data to professional sporting leagues, teams and the media. Whilst the business focuses primarily on rugby league, services are also provided in relation to rugby union, AFL, soccer and cricket. Sports Data generates income by charging its customers a licence fee. Typically the fee is paid annually in advance. Until the end of 2013 the NRL and various clubs who play in the NRL rugby league competition were by far Sports Data’s main customers and the main source of its revenue. Sports Data’s initial involvement with the NRL was through a company that was incorporated and jointly owned by Sports Data and the NRL. Through that company, NRL Stats Pty Ltd (NRL Stats), NRL and Sports Data jointly developed and managed the business of collecting, marketing and distributing rugby league statistical data from 2002 to 2008. The agreement between NRL, Sports Data and NRL Stats was terminated on 27 February 2008. On the same day as the termination of the NRL Stats agreement, Sports Data and the NRL entered into a licence agreement. Under the licence agreement the NRL agreed to grant Sports Data a licence to operate a business known as NRL Stats (not to be confused with the company NRL Stats Pty Limited) and to be the supplier of official statistics to the NRL in respect of rugby league matches. Importantly, the NRL also granted a licence to Sports Data to use audio visual and visual footage of NRL matches and other specified rugby league matches to enable Sports Data to collect and analyse the statistics. For its part, Sports Data was required to collect certain specified match statistics (Stats) for each NRL match for which it had access to a broadcast feed or video footage. On the termination of the agreement the rights and title to the Stats were, under the terms of the agreement, to be assigned to the NRL. The rights and title to all other statistics, databases and intellectual property (Other Stats) were to remain with Sports Data. NRL agreed not to supply the Other Stats to any third party without the consent of Sports Data, either before or after the agreement.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Having regard to all the circumstances, in my opinion the balance of convenience weighs against the grant of the injunctive relief sought. In summary that is because: (a)I am not satisfied that Sports Data will suffer irreparable harm if the injunctions are not granted;(b)I am not satisfied that damages are not an adequate remedy; (c)the above two considerations flow from the fact that I am not satisfied that Sports Data will go into administration (or will be wound up) if the injunction is not granted and am not satisfied that Sports Data’s financial position will necessarily be improved even if an injunction is granted;(d)Prozone will suffer not insubstantial prejudice and harm, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, if injunctions are granted; (e)Sports Data is unlikely to be able to recompense Prozone for any damage it suffers as a result of the interlocutory injunctions if Sports Data is ultimately unsuccessful in this action; (f)third parties, in particular the NRL and NRL Clubs, will suffer prejudice and harm if the injunctions are granted; (g)if Sports Data has a prima facie case, its case at this stage at least is weak and I am not satisfied that it will necessarily be entitled to the final relief it seeks even if the causes of action are made out – there are at the very least difficulties with the form of the injunctions currently sought; and(h)there has been a delay on the part of Sports Data in bringing this action.Conclusion and disposition I am not satisfied that Sports Data has made out its case for interlocutory relief. It has not established a prima facie case in respect of either breach of confidence or copyright infringement. Even if it had established a prima facie case in either or both of these causes of action, the balance of convenience does not favour the grant of an injunction. The application for interlocutory injunctions is accordingly dismissed. It should be noted that the interlocutory application also seeks an order pursuant to rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for preliminary discovery. This aspect of the application received virtually no attention in the course of the hearing. At this stage I propose simply to adjourn that aspect of the interlocutory application for further directions. It would appear to me that this is a matter best dealt with by the relevant docket judge. It is a matter that may be raised with the docket judge at the first directions hearing, or alternatively if the matter is considered to be pressing, the parties should have leave to approach the docket judge’s associate to have the matter listed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.