Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 06 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCAFC 112
• Date: 06 July 2022
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 112

File number(s):	NSD 1015 of 2021
Judgment of:	GREENWOOD, CHEESEMAN AND MCELWAINE JJ
Date of judgment:	6 July 2022
Catchwords:	COPYRIGHT – appeal from decision of the primary judge dismissing claims of copyright infringement, misuse of confidential information, and various breaches of contract – where primary judge upheld the claims in relation to only one of the respondents – where appellant contends that its claims should have been upheld by the primary judge against all respondents ; COPYRIGHT – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the copyright infringement claims against the respondents – whether the primary judge erred in not considering the evidence from 29 September 2016 in deciding what inferences should be drawn on the appellant’s authorisation case – whether the primary judge erred in not concluding that the appellant’s authorisation case was made out against each of the respondents and within the period 29 September 2016 to June 2018 – grounds 1 to 7 allowed ; COPYRIGHT – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the contract claims against the fourth and fifth respondents – where there was no error in the approach of the primary judge – grounds 10, 11, 12, and 13 dismissed
Legislation:	Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 13, 22(6), 31(1), 35 36(1), 36(1A), 101(1), 115(4) Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth) ss 36, 101(1A) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.54(c)
Cases cited:	ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2020) 269 CLR 439; [2020] HCA 34 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40 Australasian Performing Right Association Limited v Jain (1990) 26 FCR 53 Australasian Performing Right Association Limited v Metro on George Pty Ltd(2004) 210 ALR 244; [2004] FCA 1123 Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd the Commonwealth (1993) 177 CLR 480; [1993] HCA 10 Bahonko v Sterjov(2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Banque Commerciale SA (En Liqn) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11 Bealev Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Browne v Dunn(1894) 6 R 67 Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd (No 2)[2021] FCA 1053 Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd[2021] FCA 809 Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 156 FCR 380 Coulton v Holcombe(1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33 Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Glencore Investment Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 187; 281 FCR 219 Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae and Partners and Others(2020) 278 FCR 1; [2020] FCAFC 62 JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings (2016) 116 IPR 440; [2016] FCAFC 20 Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28 Microsoft Corporation v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 148 FCR 310; [2005] FCA 1522 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541 MWJ v The Queen(2005) 80 ALJR 329; [2005] HCA 74 Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd[1924] 1 KB 1 Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (2012) 248 CLR 42; [2012] HCA 16 Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2011) 194 FCR 285; [2011] FCAFC 23 Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (2014) 110 IPR 82; [2014] FCA 1366 United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1; [1985] HCA 49 Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper(2005) 150 FCR 1; [2005] FCA 972 Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd (2005) 222 FCR 465; [2005] FCA 1242 University of New South Walesv Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1; [1975] HCA 26 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 WEA v Hanimex (1987) 17 FCR 274 Winstone v Wurlitzer Automatic Phonograph Company of Australia Pty ltd[1946] VLR 338
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Copyright and Industrial Designs
Number of paragraphs:	359
Date of hearing:	15, 16 February 2022
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr M Green SC and Mr W H Wu
Solicitor for the Appellant:	McLean & Associates Solicitors
Counsel for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents:	Mr H P T Bevan SC
Solicitor for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents:	Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

		NSD 1015 of 2021
BETWEEN:	CAMPAIGNTRACK PTY LTD ACN 142 537 988 Appellant
AND:	REAL ESTATE TOOL BOX PTY LTD ACN 614 827 379 First Respondent ; BIGGIN & SCOTT CORPORATE PTY LTD ACN 072 450 689 Second Respondent ; DAVID SEMMENS (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

order made by:	GREENWOOD, CHEESEMAN AND MCELWAINE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JULY 2022

In these orders:

DreamDesk Source Code Works means the literary works in the source code of the DreamDesk system and includes the three PHP files named “src\Functions\edms.php”, “views.adhoc-edit.php” and “views\adhoc-edit2.php”;

DreamDesk Database and Table Works means the literary works in the DreamDesk database and 18 tables within the database;

PDF Works means the literary or artistic works in the PDF templates in the “client_data” folder in the DreamDesk system;

Toolbox system means the “Real Estate Tool Box” software system.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. Set aside orders 6 and 8 made on 31 August 2021 in proceeding NSD 772 of 2017.

3. In lieu thereof:

(a) Declare that the first, second, sixth and seventh respondents have between 29 September 2016 and June 2018 infringed:

(i) the copyright in the DreamDesk Source Code Works, by:

A. authorising the third respondent to reproduce the whole or a substantial part of the DreamDesk Source Code Works in material form in developing the Toolbox system;

B. authorising other developers of the Toolbox system to reproduce a substantial part of the DreamDesk Source Code Works in material form in developing the Toolbox system;

C. authorising users of the Toolbox system to reproduce a substantial part of the DreamDesk Source Code Works in material form in using the Toolbox system; and

(ii) the copyright in the DreamDesk Database and Table Works, by:

A. authorising the third respondent to reproduce a substantial part of the DreamDesk Database and Table Works;

B. authorising users of the Toolbox system to reproduce a substantial part of the DreamDesk Database and Table Works.

(b) Declare that the first respondent has infringed the copyright in the DreamDesk Source Code Works, by authorising between 29 September 2016 and June 2018 the third respondent to communicate a substantial part of the DreamDesk Source Code Works to the public, in developing the Toolbox system.

(c) Declare that the fourth and fifth respondents have infringed between 29 September 2016 and June 2018:

(i) the copyright in the DreamDesk Database and Table Works, by authorising the third respondent to reproduce a substantial part of the DreamDesk Database...