Mastec Australia Pty Ltd v Trident Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 99

Mastec Australia Pty Ltd v Trident Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 99

The proposed confidential information injunctions and related destruction orders were refused because any springboard advantage obtained by Trident Plastics from using Mastec's confidential information had expired by the time of judgment, about six years after the misuse commenced; a permanent injunction would be disproportionate, could put Mastec in a better position than if Trident Plastics had independently developed its own tools, pecuniary relief had not been shown to be inadequate, and innocent third parties with supply contracts could be affected. Mastec's immediate costs application was also refused because costs should be reserved to avoid multiple taxations, preserve the ability...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding in the Commercial and Corporations National Practice Area Concerning Injunctions and Costs After Stage One of Trial / Conclusion of Stage One of the Trial; Orders Following Findings Published in Mastec Australia Pty Ltd V Trident Plastics (sa) Pty Ltd (no 2) [2017] FCA 1581, With Stage Two Concerning Pecuniary Relief Yet to Be Completed
Outcome
The Court made declarations concerning Mastec's beneficial ownership of the Product Drawings and copyright, unlawful use of confidential information, and Australian Consumer Law contraventions; made agreed injunctions concerning misleading representations and delivery up of Product Drawings; dismissed other Amended...
Legal Topics
['springboard Injunctions' 'misuse of Confidential Information' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'ownership of CAD Drawings and Copyright' 'reserved Costs After Split Trial']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'confidential Information' 'australian Consumer Law' 'intellectual Property'] ['springboard Injunctions' 'misuse of Confidential Information' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'ownership of CAD Drawings and Copyright' 'reserved Costs After Split Trial']

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

Federal Court Proceeding in the Commercial and Corporations National Practice Area Concerning Injunctions and Costs After Stage One of Trial / Conclusion of Stage One of the Trial; Orders Following Findings Published in Mastec Australia Pty Ltd V Trident Plastics (sa) Pty Ltd (no 2) [2017] FCA 1581, With Stage Two Concerning Pecuniary Relief Yet to Be Completed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether permanent injunctions should be granted restraining the respondents from using Product Drawings and derivative drawings, tools or products after misuse of confidential information had been found.' 'Whether proposed destruction orders for derivative drawings and products should be made.' 'Whether the applicants should receive their costs of Stage One of the trial immediately, or whether costs should be reserved until after Stage Two.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed confidential information injunctions and related destruction orders were refused because any springboard advantage obtained by Trident Plastics from using Mastec's confidential information had expired by the time of judgment, about six years after the misuse commenced; a permanent injunction would be disproportionate, could put Mastec in a better position than if Trident Plastics had independently developed its own tools, pecuniary relief had not been shown to be inadequate, and innocent third parties with supply contracts could be affected. Mastec's immediate costs application was also refused because costs should be reserved to avoid multiple taxations, preserve the ability...

Court Disposition

The Court made declarations concerning Mastec's beneficial ownership of the Product Drawings and copyright, unlawful use of confidential information, and Australian Consumer Law contraventions; made agreed injunctions concerning misleading representations and delivery up of Product Drawings; dismissed other Amended...

Orders

  • ['The First Applicant is declared the beneficial owner of the Product Drawings and the copyright in the Product Drawings.' 'The Respondents are declared to have made unlawful use of the confidential information of the First Applicant by using information contained in the Product Drawings in the business of the First...