TICA Default Tenancy Control Pty Ltd v Datakatch Pty Ltd (No 3)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TICA Default Tenancy Control Pty Ltd v Datakatch Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 1117

File number:	NSD 102 of 2015
Judge:	PERRAM J
Date of judgment:	15 September 2016
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Date of hearing:	9 September 2016
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Copyright and Industrial Designs
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr K Smark SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Tomaras Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr B Katekar
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Bartier Perry

ORDERS

NSD 102 of 2015

BETWEEN:

TICA DEFAULT TENANCY CONTROL PTY LTD ACN 087 400 379

Applicant

AND:

DATAKATCH PTY LTD ACN 601 884 806

First Respondent

REGINALD JOSHUA

Second Respondent

ANTHONY NOUNNIS (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 SEPTEMBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties bring in orders giving effect to these reasons within 7 days.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J:

1. This action concerned allegations of breach of confidence and infringement of copyright, and was tried over three days between 21 and 23 March 2016.  On 15 July 2016 judgment was delivered: TICA Default Tenancy Control Pty Ltd v Datakatch Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 815. The basic contention was that the software operated by the applicant for the purposes of its business had been copied by the first respondent for the purpose of starting a similar business.

2. Although it was held that copyright inhered in the TICA system, I found that an infringement of that copyright had not been shown. I did, however, uphold the applicant’s allegation that Mr Anthony Nounnis had breached an obligation of confidence owed to the applicant by using confidential usernames and passwords taken from the applicant to access its website to assist in the design of Datakatch’s software. I also concluded that Datakatch and Mr Joshua were involved in this activity. Additionally, I found Mr Nounnis liable for the same conduct under s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

3. The parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order.  They have been able to agree on many of the issues which arise but not all of them.  They remain in dispute on the following issues.  First, whether the relief sought against Datakatch, Mr Joshua and Mr Nounnis arising from the four usernames and passwords identified in the principal judgment should be limited to those four usernames and passwords, or whether it should instead be more generally expressed to apply to any usernames and passwords of the applicant which the respondents have.  The relief sought in this regard is a final injunction and, variously expressed, orders for delivery up of usernames and passwords.  Secondly, whether the applicant should pay the costs of the first to third respondents, or whether there should be no order as to costs.  Thirdly, whether…