Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd & Ors [2001] EWHC Ch 481 (02 November 2001)

Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd & Ors [2001] EWHC Ch 481 (02 November 2001)

There was no copying whatsoever of the claimant's Docklands plans in the design of the Kunsthal. The similarities alleged were either coincidental, arbitrary, or unrelated features, and the expert evidence supporting copying was biased and unreliable. The defendants' explanations of independent creation were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Ch 481
Parties
Claimant: Gareth Pearce; Defendant: Ove Arup Partnership Ltd; Defendant: Remment Lucas Koolhaas (sued as Rem Koolhaas); Defendant: Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) Stedebouw BV (sued as Office for Metropolitan Architecture); Defendant: City of Rotterdam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Architectural Copyright, Plagiarism, Moral Rights, Expert Evidence, Dutch Law Application
Intellectual Property Copyright Architectural Copyright Plagiarism Moral Rights Expert Evidence Dutch Law Application

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Pearce

Claimant

Ove Arup Partnership Ltd

Defendant

Remment Lucas Koolhaas (sued as Rem Koolhaas)

Defendant

Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) Stedebouw BV (sued as Office for Metropolitan Architecture)

Defendant

City of Rotterdam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether copyright and/or moral rights subsist in the Docklands Plans under Dutch law
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was the author of the Docklands Plans
  3. 3 Whether the Kunsthal or its design drawings infringe the claimant's copyright or moral rights under Dutch law

Ratio Decidendi

There was no copying whatsoever of the claimant's Docklands plans in the design of the Kunsthal. The similarities alleged were either coincidental, arbitrary, or unrelated features, and the expert evidence supporting copying was biased and unreliable. The defendants' explanations of independent creation were credible and supported by evidence. The claim was wholly unfounded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Action against first and fourth defendants stayed by consent order
  • No finding of infringement or copying