Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd v Randfontein Local Municipality and Another (36264/2013; 36265/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 639 (15 September 2015)

Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd v Randfontein Local Municipality and Another (36264/2013; 36265/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 639 (15 September 2015)

The court found that the original judgment was ambiguous regarding whether the awarded amounts covered both the period before and after summons. It was the court's intention that the amount of R750 000 per respondent should apply to both periods. Accordingly, the judgment was clarified and paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 were amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to the period prior to summons as well as the period after summons. No order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 639
Parties
Applicant: Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Randfontein Local Municipality; Respondent: Westonaria Local Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2015
Case Number
36264/2013; 36265/2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Clarification / Application in Terms of Rule 6(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
Application for clarification granted. Judgment amended to clarify that the awarded amounts relate to both the period prior to and after summons.
Judges
S. Potterill
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Royalty Payments, Clarification of Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 6 11
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Royalty Payments Clarification of Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 6 11

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

Parties

Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Randfontein Local Municipality

Respondent

Westonaria Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Clarification / Application in Terms of Rule 6(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the awarded amount of R750 000 per respondent relates only to the period before summons or also to the period after summons.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment requires clarification regarding the periods covered by the royalty and licence fee awards.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original judgment was ambiguous regarding whether the awarded amounts covered both the period before and after summons. It was the court's intention that the amount of R750 000 per respondent should apply to both periods. Accordingly, the judgment was clarified and paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 were amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to the period prior to summons as well as the period after summons. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application for clarification granted. Judgment amended to clarify that the awarded amounts relate to both the period prior to and after summons.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 of the judgment are amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to both the period prior to summons and the period after summons.
  • No order as to costs.