Tamawood Limited v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2015] FCAFC 65

Tamawood Limited v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2015] FCAFC 65

Mondo’s plans for the Torrington duplex were found to infringe Tamawood’s copyright. On appeal, substantial reproduction of the Dunkeld plan was also found: Habitare and Mondo, lacking authorisation or valid licence, infringed copyright. The directors of Habitare (Peter O'Mara and Johnson) were found to have authorised infringement given their knowledge and control. The Bloomer parties were found ‘innocent infringers’. Additional damages were not warranted as conduct was not flagrant. The costs orders made in favour of the Bloomer parties were set aside. The trial judge’s findings of misleading and deceptive conduct by Shane O'Mara were upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Tamawood’s appeal allowed in part; Mondo’s appeal dismissed; Shane O'Mara's appeal dismissed; orders to be made reflecting Full Court’s reasons; costs orders in favour of the Bloomer parties set aside.
Legal Topics
['copyright Infringement' 'licence (contractual and Bare)' 'authorisation of Infringement' 'innocent Infringement' 'additional Damages' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'costs']
['intellectual Property' 'trade Practices' 'commercial Law'] ['copyright Infringement' 'licence (contractual and Bare)' 'authorisation of Infringement' 'innocent Infringement' 'additional Damages' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'costs']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether copyright in Tamawood’s plans was infringed by Mondo’s plans' 'Whether a licence (contractual or bare) authorised Habitare or Mondo’s acts' 'Whether ‘innocent infringement’ defence was available to Mondo and Bloomer parties' 'Whether Habitare directors authorised infringement' 'Whether additional damages under s 115(4) of Copyright Act were available' 'Whether misleading and deceptive conduct occurred under Trade Practices Act' 'Appropriateness of costs orders']

Ratio Decidendi

Mondo’s plans for the Torrington duplex were found to infringe Tamawood’s copyright. On appeal, substantial reproduction of the Dunkeld plan was also found: Habitare and Mondo, lacking authorisation or valid licence, infringed copyright. The directors of Habitare (Peter O'Mara and Johnson) were found to have authorised infringement given their knowledge and control. The Bloomer parties were found ‘innocent infringers’. Additional damages were not warranted as conduct was not flagrant. The costs orders made in favour of the Bloomer parties were set aside. The trial judge’s findings of misleading and deceptive conduct by Shane O'Mara were upheld.

Court Disposition

Tamawood’s appeal allowed in part; Mondo’s appeal dismissed; Shane O'Mara's appeal dismissed; orders to be made reflecting Full Court’s reasons; costs orders in favour of the Bloomer parties set aside.

Orders

  • ['Parties to confer and submit agreed or competing proposed orders within 14 days reflecting reasons for judgment, including with respect to costs.' 'Costs orders made on 26 November 2013 in favour of the Bloomer parties are set aside; each party to bear own costs as between Tamawood and the Bloomer parties.']