King, George Raymond & Anor v Milpurrurru, George & Ors [1996] FCA 237

King, George Raymond & Anor v Milpurrurru, George & Ors [1996] FCA 237

The Court held that the directors (appellants) did not personally procure, direct, or sufficiently acquiesce in the post-notice importations of infringing carpets so as to make the wrongful conduct their own within the meaning of s 37 of the Copyright Act 1968 or under the general law. Although they failed to make further inquiries beyond accepting their co-director’s (Bethune’s) assurances, such omission might breach their duty to the company, but did not of itself amount to authorisation or personal procurement of the infringements. Accordingly, they were not personally liable for the company’s infringements after notice, and the appeal was allowed on that question. Partial relief was...

Parties
First Appellant: George Raymond King; Second Appellant: Robert James Rylands; First Respondent: George Milpurrurru; Second Respondent: Banduk Marika; Third Respondent: Tim Payunka; Fourth Respondent: The Public Trustee for the Northern Territory
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed (in part); directors not personally liable; orders regarding damages and costs varied.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Personal Liability of Directors, Duty of Care and Diligence, Joint Tortfeasorship
Intellectual Property Corporations Law Torts Copyright Infringement Personal Liability of Directors Duty of Care and Diligence Joint Tortfeasorship

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 4 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Raymond King

First Appellant

Robert James Rylands

Second Appellant

George Milpurrurru

First Respondent

Banduk Marika

Second Respondent

Tim Payunka

Third Respondent

The Public Trustee for the Northern Territory

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the directors (appellants) are personally liable for acts of copyright infringement by their company after being put on notice of the alleged infringements.
  2. 2 What is the legal threshold for imposing personal liability on company directors for the torts of the corporation under s 37 of the Copyright Act 1968.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the directors (appellants) did not personally procure, direct, or sufficiently acquiesce in the post-notice importations of infringing carpets so as to make the wrongful conduct their own within the meaning of s 37 of the Copyright Act 1968 or under the general law. Although they failed to make further inquiries beyond accepting their co-director’s (Bethune’s) assurances, such omission might breach their duty to the company, but did not of itself amount to authorisation or personal procurement of the infringements. Accordingly, they were not personally liable for the company’s infringements after notice, and the appeal was allowed on that question. Partial relief was...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (in part); directors not personally liable; orders regarding damages and costs varied.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • Orders varied to specify 'first and second respondents' as liable as appropriate.