Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 38

Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 38

None of the appellants authorised the infringing acts within the meaning of s 36(1) of the Copyright Act, as they neither knew nor had reason to suspect infringement and gave express instructions to avoid such acts. Indifference in the circumstances did not amount to authorisation because further proactive steps were not reasonably required on the evidence and as cross-examined at trial; undertakings were given genuinely, and cooperation with investigations was provided.

Parties
Appellant: Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd; Appellant: Biggin & Scott Corporate Pty Ltd; Appellant: Dream Desk Pty Ltd; Appellant: Mr Meissner; Appellant: Mr Stoner; Appellant: Ms Bartels; Respondent: Campaigntrack Pty Ltd; Respondent: Mr Semmens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to High Court From Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Copyright, Authorisation of Infringement, Infringement Liability, Software Copyright
Intellectual Property Copyright Authorisation of Infringement Infringement Liability Software Copyright

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd

Appellant

Biggin & Scott Corporate Pty Ltd

Appellant

Dream Desk Pty Ltd

Appellant

Mr Meissner

Appellant

Mr Stoner

Appellant

Ms Bartels

Appellant

Campaigntrack Pty Ltd

Respondent

Mr Semmens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to High Court From Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants authorised the infringement of copyright under s 36(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) by Mr Semmens and others in the development and use of Toolbox software.
  2. 2 Whether indifference or failure to prevent acts by another constitutes authorisation of copyright infringement under Australian law.

Ratio Decidendi

None of the appellants authorised the infringing acts within the meaning of s 36(1) of the Copyright Act, as they neither knew nor had reason to suspect infringement and gave express instructions to avoid such acts. Indifference in the circumstances did not amount to authorisation because further proactive steps were not reasonably required on the evidence and as cross-examined at trial; undertakings were given genuinely, and cooperation with investigations was provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 6 July 2022 and 19 July 2022, and, in lieu, dismiss the appeal with costs.
  • The first respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal to this Court.