Hoyle v Hoyle - [2017] NZCA 516

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA24/2017
[2017] NZCA 516

BETWEEN

PAUL DAVID HOYLE
Appellant

AND

DAVID STANLEY HOYLE
First Respondent

TRANSPREAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Second Respondent

Hearing:	16 and 17 August 2017
Court:	French, Miller and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	P C Dengate-Thrush and G M Richards for Appellant PDM Johns and N K Harre for Respondents
Judgment:	14 November 2017 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed in part. We set aside the injunction entered in the High Court.
BWe make an order restraining the appellant — whether by himself or by his servants, agents, contractors, or associates or otherwise howsoever —from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic works by any of the means set out in para A to the respondent’s amended statement of claim (other than subpara h), dated 7 April 2015.
CThe appeal is otherwise dismissed.
DThe appellant must pay the respondent costs for a complex appeal on a band B basis and usual disbursements, with an uplift of one third. We certify for second counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

The High Court found that there subsists in the respondent, David Hoyle, copyright in drawings of fertiliser spreaders, side tippers and drawbars,[1] and that his copyright was breached by his son, Paul Hoyle, the appellant.[2] From that judgment Paul appeals.
[1]Hoyle v Hoyle [2016] NZHC 3120 at [126].
[2]At [216]–[219].
Clark J denied Paul, on pleadings grounds, the ability to advance two defences: that the spreaders form part of a design continuum, the element of originality being much older and no longer protected by copyright; and that the copyrights were owned not by David personally but by family businesses.[3] Against the possibility that she was wrong, the Judge went on to address and reject the defences, finding that David had copyright in his pleaded works, which comprised electronic drawings and laser cutting files, and Paul had infringed it.[4] She made declarations accordingly and issued an injunction (to expire, so far as it concerned spreaders, on 22 December 2017).[5] A claim for damages or an account of profits has not yet been decided, pending this liability appeal.

Narrative

[3]At [62]–[63].

[4]At [133] and [216]–219].

[5]At [219] and [273].

The background described by Clark J is not in dispute. She recorded that David began designing and building agricultural machinery in the 1950s, and in 1969 set up DS Hoyle & Co Ltd to manufacture and market spreading and transport machines. By the mid to late 1970s he had some 20 to 30 employees. He continued to design machinery, formally licensing the manufacture, marketing and sale of his designs to the company, which went into receivership when agricultural subsidies were removed in the 1980s.
The machinery which concerns us is: spreaders, which are mounted on a truck or trailer and comprise a large bin, a set of rotating spinners at the rear, and a conveyor system to move the fertiliser to the spinners; side tippers, which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hoyle v Hoyle

Details

AGLC: Hoyle v Hoyle [2017] NZCA 516
Case: [2017] NZCA 516
Decision Date: 14 November 2017 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Paul David Hoyle against a decision of the High Court that his father, David Stanley Hoyle, held copyright in drawings of agricultural machinery and that Paul had infringed that copyright. Paul appealed against the findings of originality and ownership of the copyright, and the finding of infringement. The appeal also challenged the terms and duration of an injunction issued against Paul.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings of originality and ownership of the copyright in the drawings, as well as the finding of infringement. The Court held that Paul's defences of lack of originality and non-personal ownership were not properly pleaded, and thus could not be considered. The Court was satisfied that the drawings were original works of David, who was also the owner of the copyright. The Court found that Paul had copied the drawings and manufactured machines that infringed David's copyright.

However, the Court of Appeal set aside part of the injunction issued by the High Court. While it upheld the prohibition on copying and dealing with the copyright works, it held that the injunction should not restrain Paul from manufacturing machines that did not infringe David's copyright. The Court modified the injunction accordingly.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the injunction modified as described. The appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent on a complex appeal band B basis, with an uplift of one third to recognise the additional costs imposed on the respondent by the conduct of the appeal. The Court certified for second counsel.

Orders