Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited [2019] FCA 2075

Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited [2019] FCA 2075

The objective circumstances and the enduring business practice between the applicants and agencies, with knowledge of industry practices and REA's requirements, support the inference (or implication) that the agencies were authorised by the applicants to grant licences to REA in the form required by REA’s terms, including the right to sub-license to RP Data. Those acts by RP Data occurred within the scope of this licence; accordingly, no copyright infringement by RP Data was established for the works in question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Action Under S 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Judgment Following Hearing on Liability for Infringement Pertaining to Certain Works (separate Question)
Outcome
Applicants did not establish that RP Data infringed copyright in respect of the works the subject of the separate question.
Legal Topics
['copyright' 'implied Terms' 'licence (copyright)' 'infringement' 'equitable Assignment']
['intellectual Property'] ['copyright' 'implied Terms' 'licence (copyright)' 'infringement' 'equitable Assignment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Action Under S 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Judgment Following Hearing on Liability for Infringement Pertaining to Certain Works (separate Question)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether RP Data Pty Ltd infringed copyright in photographs and floor plans under s 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)' 'Whether a licence (express, implied, or inferred) was granted by the applicants to real estate agencies, and the scope of such a licence' 'Whether such licence permitted sub-licensing to REA, and by REA to RP Data' 'Whether equitable ownership or assignment principles applied']

Ratio Decidendi

The objective circumstances and the enduring business practice between the applicants and agencies, with knowledge of industry practices and REA's requirements, support the inference (or implication) that the agencies were authorised by the applicants to grant licences to REA in the form required by REA’s terms, including the right to sub-license to RP Data. Those acts by RP Data occurred within the scope of this licence; accordingly, no copyright infringement by RP Data was established for the works in question.

Court Disposition

Applicants did not establish that RP Data infringed copyright in respect of the works the subject of the separate question.

Orders

  • ['By 4.00pm on 13 December 2019, the parties file agreed minutes of order reflecting these reasons for judgment or, in the absence of agreement, competing minutes of order.' 'In the event orders cannot be agreed, the matter be listed at 9.00am on 17 December 2019 for argument including as to costs.']