Hoyle v Hoyle

[2016] NZHC 3120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2011-454-910 [2016] NZHC 3120

UNDER

the Copyright Act 1994

IN THE MATTER OF

Copyright infringement

BETWEEN

DAVID STANLEY HOYLE First Plaintiff

AND

TRANSPREAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

PAUL DAVID HOYLE Defendant

Hearing:	23–30 November, 1–11 December 2015 and 28 January 2016
Counsel:	N J Scampion and P D M Johns for First and Second Plaintiffs P Dengate Thrush and W Aldred for Defendant
Judgment:	19 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is

4:30pm on 19th of December 2016

HOYLE v TRANSPREAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3120 [19 December 2016]

A	Introduction		[1]
B	Background		[3]
C	Issues		[18]
D	Plaintiffs’ case		[21]
D.1		Plaintiffs’ pleaded case	[21]
D.1		(i) The spreader drawings	[24]
D.1		(ii) The side tipper drawings	[25]
D.1		(iii) The drawbar drawings	[26]
D.1		(iv) Laser cutting shape files – .dxf files	[27]
D.1		(v) Infringement	[28]
D.2		Evidence	[30]
E     The defendant’s case  [34]
E.1		Defendant’s pleaded case	[34]
E.2		Evidence	[39]
F     The trial: observations and rulings  [46]
F.1		The documents and electronic bundle	[47]
F.2		Discovery	[49]
F.3		Unpleaded defences	[51]
F.3		(i) Objection to unpleaded defences	[51]
F.3		(ii) Analysis	[59]
F.3		(iii) Determination	[62]
G     Subsistence  [64]
G.1		Originality: the principles	[66]
G.1		(i) Originality: Spreaders	[69]
G.1		(ii) Originality: Side tippers	[100]
G.1		(iii) Originality: Drawbars	[121]
G.1		(iv) Originality: .dxf files	[125]
G.2		Subsistence: conclusion	[126]
H     Ownership  [129]
H.1		Applicable principles	[129]
H.2		Defendant’s position	[130]
H.3		Ownership: determination	[133]
I      Infringement  [134]
I.1		The applicable principles	[134]
I.1		(i) Objective similarity	[137]
I.1		(ii) Causal connection	[138]
I.1		(iii) Substantial part	[141]
I.2		Preliminary observations concerning proof	[148]
I.3		Spreader drawings infringement	[155]
I.3		(i) Objective similarity	[156]
I.3		(ii) Causal connection	[161]
I.3		(iii) Substantial reproduction	[182]
I.4		Side tipper drawings infringement	[200]
I.4		(i) Objective similarity	[201]
I.4		(ii) Causal connection	[203]
I.4		(iii) Substantial reproduction	[204]
I.5		Drawbar drawings infringement	[210]
I.5		(i) Objective similarity	[210]
I.5		(ii) Casual connection	[211]
I.5		(iii) Substantial reproduction	[212]

I.6      Summary: infringement claim	[216] [220]
J		Standing of the second plaintiff
J.1      Submissions	[221]
J.2      Analysis	[224]
K	Industrial application	[228]
L	First counterclaim: unjustified proceedings	[236]
M	Second counterclaim: revocation	[240]
N	Third counterclaim: unlawful interference with business relations	[243]
N.1     Analysis	[250]
O	Fourth counterclaim: injurious falsehood	[255]
P	Fifth counterclaim: breach of the Fair Trading Act	[262]
P.1      Analysis	[265]
Q	Result	[270]

A       Introduction

[1]      The  first  plaintiff,  David  Hoyle,  designs  and  builds  agricultural machines.   The machines and componentry at the heart of this claim are fertiliser spreaders, side tippers and drawbars.  The defendant, Paul Hoyle, is his eldest son.  Paul worked with David in the late 1980s and at other times including  in  2003  and  2004.    David  says  that  when  Paul  left  the  family business in 2004 to set up on his own Paul took David’s designs with him and since that time has…