T R Flanagan Smash Repairs Pty Ltd v Jones [1999] FCA 1391
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent did not show that the interlocutory injunction decision was attended by sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The new material did not show that the applicant's copyright claim, at least as a compilation, would fail; at most it showed a serious question to be tried at final hearing. The respondent's interlocutory relief on the cross-claim was refused because the applicant's undertaking addressed the Court's concern about use or copying of Foxquote material, the respondent did not establish a prima facie case of likely misappropriation, the requested relief went beyond preserving the status quo,...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 October 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Copyright Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Injunction and Respondent's Interlocutory Application on Cross Claim
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused; respondent's notice of motion dismissed with costs; respondent's interlocutory relief on the cross-claim refused upon the applicant's undertaking to the Court.
- Legal Topics
- ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'copyright Subsistence and Originality' 'computer Programs' 'undertakings to the Court']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Injunction and Respondent's Interlocutory Application on Cross Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from reproducing, publishing or authorising reproduction or publication of the applicant's AutoQuote Vehicle Directory and AutoQuote Parts Database." "Whether the respondent's new affidavit material showed sufficient doubt about copyright subsistence, originality or ownership to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court." 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to interlocutory relief on his cross-claim concerning the Foxquote program, including delivery up, restraint on licensing AQIWP, deletion and a statutory declaration.']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent did not show that the interlocutory injunction decision was attended by sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The new material did not show that the applicant's copyright claim, at least as a compilation, would fail; at most it showed a serious question to be tried at final hearing. The respondent's interlocutory relief on the cross-claim was refused because the applicant's undertaking addressed the Court's concern about use or copying of Foxquote material, the respondent did not establish a prima facie case of likely misappropriation, the requested relief went beyond preserving the status quo,...
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused; respondent's notice of motion dismissed with costs; respondent's interlocutory relief on the cross-claim refused upon the applicant's undertaking to the Court.
Orders
- ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The notice of motion taken out by Mr Jones on 27 September 1999 is dismissed with costs.' "The applicant's undertaking not to use or copy material installed by the respondent on its computers in November 1998 is noted." "The respondent's claim for interlocutory...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment