T R Flanagan Smash Repairs Pty Ltd v Jones [1999] FCA 1391

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.

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

Copyright Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Injunction and Respondent's Interlocutory Application on Cross Claim

  1. 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...