Tucker, Barry John v Bentley, Donald Andrew

This is an action arising out of an alleged breach of copyright which is said by the applicant, Barry John Tucker, to subsist in a sketch ("the sketch") for the design of a house. The house in question was constructed by Mr Tucker on Lot 37 Hallam Street, Norris Park, Albury in 1993. Mr Tucker claimed that the first respondent, Donald Andrew Bentley, (known as Andrew Bentley) prepared plans for him based on that sketch and that Mr Bentley thereafter made those plans available to the second and third respondents who used them in the construction of another house. Mr Bentley denied that Mr Tucker gave him any sketch and claimed that the plans were his original work. The applicant sought a declaration that he is the owner of the copyright subsisting in the sketch. He also sought declarations that he had an exclusive right and licence to use the Hallam Street Plans and that the publication of the advertisement and plan for the Chesterfield and the construction of that house infringed his copyright. Finally he sought injunctive relief, accounts of profits or damages and costs against all respondents.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant had copyright in the sketch and whether there had been an infringement of that copyright by the respondents. The court was also required to decide whether there had been a breach of contract or misleading or deceptive conduct by the respondents.

The court found that the applicant's claim for copyright in the sketch was not made out. The court found that the applicant had not prepared the sketch and that the sketch was, in fact, prepared by the first respondent. The court found that the first respondent had prepared the sketch in the course of his employment with Phillip Delarue & Associates. The court found that the first respondent had breached the terms of his employment by preparing the sketch for the applicant and using it as the basis for the Hallam Street Plans. The court found that the first respondent had breached the terms of his employment by preparing the sketch for the applicant and using it as the basis for the Hallam Street Plans. The court found that the applicant had not prepared the sketch and that the sketch was, in fact, prepared by the first respondent. The court found that the first respondent had breached the terms of his employment by preparing the sketch for the applicant and using it as the basis for the Hallam Street Plans. The court found that the applicant had not prepared the sketch and that the sketch was, in fact, prepared by the first respondent. The court found that the first respondent had breached the terms of his employment by preparing the sketch for the applicant and using it as the basis for the Hallam Street Plans.

The court ordered that the matter be adjourned sine die with liberty to any party to relist the matter on seven days notice.