TORT – trespass – injurious falsehood – applicant seeks permanent injunctive relief to restrain respondent from publishing video images obtained as a result of trespasses – where applicant operates a commercial abattoir – where respondent is an animal rights organisation – where relevant video images portray scenes from within abattoir – where respondent made initial publication of relevant video images – where interim injunction granted to prevent publication – where trespasses are admitted – whether initial publication amounted to injurious falsehood – whether initial publication conveyed false representations as to applicant’s business – whether initial publication actuated by malice – whether applicant suffered special damage by alleged injurious falsehood – whether applicant entitled to permanent injunctive relief – whether damages an adequate remedy – whether applicant entitled to award of general damages – whether applicant entitled to award of exemplary damages – application allowed in part.
CONSUMER LAW – whether initial publication was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive – whether relief under Australian Consumer Law available to applicant – application refused.
EQUITY – whether respondent’s ownership under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) of copyright in imagery obtained during trespass is held on trust for applicant – whether existence of trust should be recognised – whether assignment of legal interests should be required – application refused.
Related cases about tort law and copyright
-
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 246
COPYRIGHT – whether site blocking orders should be made under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Held: site blocking and related orders made
-
Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 106
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – whether information about extraction machine was confidential information owned by company where second respondent was former director – where machine had been identified by directors as suitable for proposed business prior to incorporation of company – where second respondent was informed about machine by third party on unrestricted basis – where evidence…
-
Chou v Metstech Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 205
COPYRIGHT – appeal and cross-appeals – whether primary judge erred in making a declaration as to copyright subsistence and ownership and an order for delivery up – whether the plaintiffs in the proceeding below failed to join a necessary party – whether the declaration made is an order in rem – where no objection to…
