IT Human Resources Plc v Land [2014] EWHC 3812 (Ch) (17 November 2014)

IT Human Resources Plc v Land [2014] EWHC 3812 (Ch) (17 November 2014)

ITHR owned copyright in both the Interact source code and database schema. Land infringed copyright by providing software to Nationwide without permission. No oral licence or permission was proven. The claim for copyright infringement is statute barred for acts before 3 October 2005; no deliberate concealment was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3812 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: IT Human Resources PLC; Defendant: David Land
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Copyright and Fiduciary Duty Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute barred; no relief granted.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Fiduciary Duties of Directors, Software Ownership, Limitation Period, Oral Licence
Intellectual Property Company Law Copyright Infringement Fiduciary Duties of Directors Software Ownership Limitation Period Oral Licence

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IT Human Resources PLC

Claimant

David Land

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright and Fiduciary Duty Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant owned copyright in the Interact database schema
  2. 2 Whether the defendant infringed copyright by providing software to Nationwide
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached fiduciary duties as a director

Ratio Decidendi

ITHR owned copyright in both the Interact source code and database schema. Land infringed copyright by providing software to Nationwide without permission. No oral licence or permission was proven. The claim for copyright infringement is statute barred for acts before 3 October 2005; no deliberate concealment was established to extend the limitation period. No actionable breach of fiduciary duty was proven beyond copyright infringement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute barred; no relief granted.