Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1312

Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1312

Where plans and drawings have been prepared for a development application, and a development consent running with the land is granted and is current, there is, as a matter of law and on the factual context, an implied licence granted by the author/architect in favour of the owner and successors in title, for the duration of the consent, to use those plans for the purposes of the approved development. Non-payment of fees or lack of express assignment do not, in these circumstances or absent an express reservation or agreed condition, preclude the operation or transmission of such a licence to a purchaser. Further, the express threats made by the respondents as to copyright infringement...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Claim in Federal Court of Australia / Final Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Application allowed for applicant; cross-claim dismissed; declarations and injunction granted; damages to be inquired into; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['copyright in Architectural Works' 'implied Licence' 'development Approvals' 'transfer of Land and Associated Rights']
['intellectual Property Law' 'property Law' 'local Government Law'] ['copyright in Architectural Works' 'implied Licence' 'development Approvals' 'transfer of Land and Associated Rights']

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

Application and Cross Claim in Federal Court of Australia / Final Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an implied licence of architectural copyright was conferred on a purchaser of real property for Council-approved development plans' 'Whether threats of copyright infringement were unjustifiable under s 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)' 'Whether alleged non-payment or building contract affected the existence or transfer of an implied licence']

Ratio Decidendi

Where plans and drawings have been prepared for a development application, and a development consent running with the land is granted and is current, there is, as a matter of law and on the factual context, an implied licence granted by the author/architect in favour of the owner and successors in title, for the duration of the consent, to use those plans for the purposes of the approved development. Non-payment of fees or lack of express assignment do not, in these circumstances or absent an express reservation or agreed condition, preclude the operation or transmission of such a licence to a purchaser. Further, the express threats made by the respondents as to copyright infringement...

Court Disposition

Application allowed for applicant; cross-claim dismissed; declarations and injunction granted; damages to be inquired into; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Declaration that the respondents' copyright threats are unjustifiable under s 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)" 'Injunction restraining further copyright threats by the respondents' 'Enquiry into damages suffered by the applicant due to the threats' 'Cross-claim of cross-claimant dismissed' 'Costs reserved for...