Fasold, David & Anor v Roberts, Allen & Anor [1997] FCA 439

Fasold, David & Anor v Roberts, Allen & Anor [1997] FCA 439

Neither Dr Roberts nor Ark Search Inc made representations 'in trade or commerce' as required by the Fair Trading Acts or Trade Practices Act; thus, no relief could be granted under those statutes. However, Dr Roberts did authorise the copying of a substantial part of Mr Fasold's copyright-protected diagram, infringing copyright and warranting modest damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the first applicant (Fasold) against the first respondent (Roberts) for copyright infringement; all other claims and cross-claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'fair Trading' 'copyright Infringement' 'business Definition' 'commercial Activity' 'damages Assessment']
['trade Practices' 'copyright' 'consumer Protection'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'fair Trading' 'copyright Infringement' 'business Definition' 'commercial Activity' 'damages Assessment']

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

Civil / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements by Dr Roberts were made 'in trade or commerce' within the meaning of the Fair Trading Acts and Trade Practices Act" 'Whether Dr Roberts and Ark Search Inc engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct' "Whether Mr Fasold's copyright was infringed by the respondents' publications" 'Whether damages or an injunction should be awarded for misleading conduct or copyright infringement']

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Dr Roberts nor Ark Search Inc made representations 'in trade or commerce' as required by the Fair Trading Acts or Trade Practices Act; thus, no relief could be granted under those statutes. However, Dr Roberts did authorise the copying of a substantial part of Mr Fasold's copyright-protected diagram, infringing copyright and warranting modest damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the first applicant (Fasold) against the first respondent (Roberts) for copyright infringement; all other claims and cross-claims dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment in favour of the first applicant against the first respondent in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).' 'The application otherwise be dismissed.' 'The cross-claim be dismissed.' 'Respondents directed to file and serve any submissions on costs within 14 days.' "Applicants to file and serve...