Review Australia Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd

Federal Court of Australia|2003-09-26|Before: Heerey J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant Review Australia Pty Ltd (Review) has commenced proceedings for infringement of copyright against Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (Redberry) in V387 of 2002 (the Redberry proceeding) and against XOXOXO Trading Pty Ltd (XO Trading) in V388 of 2002 (the XO Trading proceeding). 2 Review alleges that it is the owner of copyright in certain dress making patterns, sample garments, scanned patterns and cutting sheets and that Redberry and XO Trading have manufactured or imported, offered for sale, distributed and/or sold garments which infringe Review's copyright. 3 On 17 June 2003 Review filed notices of motion in each proceeding seeking leave to join certain corporate and individual respondents in each proceeding and to amend its application and statement of claim. The proposed added respondents are set out in the following table. Where a tick appears the joinder is not opposed. Where a question mark appears the joinder is opposed. Where neither tick nor question mark appears, no application for joinder of that corporation or individual is made in the relevant proceeding. Redberry Proceeding XO Trading Proceeding D & L Design Pty Ltd ü ü Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd ü Hot Chilli Group Pty Ltd ü Xiao Qing Ke ? ? Zhan Yun Li ? ? Sui Qiang Ke ? Sui Dong Ke ?

9 Ms Ke is a resident of New South Wales. She is a director of Redberry, but was only appointed on 26 February 2003, that is to say after the transactions the subject of the present proceeding. She has never been a director of XO Trading. She was a director of D & L Design Pty Ltd (D & L) (appointed 9 February 2001) and a director of Hot Chilli Group Pty Ltd (Hot Chilli) (appointed 9 August 2000). She deposed that this latter appointment was as a matter of convenience. The other director of D & L Design, Xu Ling Cai, resides permanently in China.

10 At the times relevant to the present proceedings Ms Ke would be overseas approximately four to five times per year for periods of one to one and a half months at a time. When in Australia she could sign documents for D & L and Hot Chilli. This was her primary role in those companies. She would attend at one of the warehouses of XO Trading from time to time to help out in busy periods or when they were short staffed. She was not involved in the operations of Redberry or XO Trading on a day to day basis. 11 Ms Ke deposed that the business records of Redberry and XO Trading showed that the garments the subject of the two proceedings were obtained from a Chinese company Sinotrans Guangdong Imp & Exp Trading Company (Sinotrans). Sinotrans is an intermediary between Chinese manufacturers and wholesale purchasers. In relation to the garments the subject of the proceedings, so far as Ms Ke is aware, Redberry and XO Trading dealt only with Sinotrans and not the Chinese manufacturers. 12 Ms Ke deposed that the person responsible for dealing with Sinotrans and arranging for the importation to Australia of garments, including sample garments, was Guo Xin Ke. He resides permanently in China. He attends the premises of Sinotrans on a regular basis. It is his signature on behalf of the buyer which appears on contact documents discovered by Redberry and XO Trading. Ms Ke deposed that she had no involvement in any dealing with Sinotrans in relation to the garments the subject of the two proceedings and no involvement in the selection and importation of those garments. She has reviewed the respondents' lists and supplementary lists of documents and is not aware of any other document which relates to the proceedings. 13 To the best of Ms Ke's knowledge, Guo Xin Ke received the sample garments from Sinotrans and sent them to Redberry and XO Trading in Australia. Ms Ke has no knowledge or recollection as to who would have reviewed the sample garments relevant to the proceedings once they entered Australia. In the normal course of business a warehouse manager (not a director) or senior employee of the business would review the sample garments received from Guo Xin Ke and advise him as to what garment should be ordered in wholesale quantities from Sinotrans. Ms Ke deposed that she had no part in any other process of selecting and importing any garments the subject of the proceedings, nor did she participate in sales to retailers of any such garments. This was the job of employees of the business. 14 Ms Ke deposed that international money transfer applications discovered by the respondents usually deal in large sums of money relating to a large number of invoices. They do not reveal the contents of separate invoices. 15 Ms Ke deposed that Redberry and XO Trading do not manufacture any goods, nor does D & L or Hot Chilli. Redberry and XO Trading are merely importers and wholesalers of goods. They have businesses with many employees and deal with many hundreds of lines of garments at any one time. 16 She further deposed that until these proceedings she had not heard of Review, nor had she seen the Review clothing the subject of the proceedings. She did not at any time think about the copyright ownership of the garments imported from China. If she had, she would have assumed that any copyright belonged to the Chinese manufacturer as the maker of the garments. 17 Ms Ke was not cross-examined. The evidence in her affidavit is not inherently improbable and I accept it. 18 As already mentioned, Review has to establish actual or constructive knowledge of the copyright infringement. In Lahore, Copyright and Designs at [34,880] it is said that "…knowledge for this purpose refers to notice of facts such as would suggest to a reasonable person, having the ordinary understanding expected of persons in the particular line of business, that a breach of copyright was being committed." 19 The bare fact that Ms Ke was a director of D & L is not sufficient. In Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 209 at 233 von Doussa J said that the evidence against certain company directors "consisted of the statutory returns made to the Australian Securities Commission - documents which asserted that they had been directors of the companies since its inception - together with certain handwritten notations on financial records of the company. On bank statements emanating from a Vietnamese bank which held an account for (the company) there was one notation relating to Mr King and two relating to Mr Rylands. Standing alone those entries are meaningless and do not prove the involvement of either respondent in the importation of the offending carpets into Australia. Mere proof that Mr King and Mr Rylands were directors at the time of importation falls far short of establishing the requisite degree of involvement and knowledge to render them personally liable." See also Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd and Another v McCallum & Co Pty Ltd (2001) 53 IPR 400 at [45] and Dixon Projects Pty Ltd v Hallmark Homes Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1206. Here the only evidence to support an arguable case against Ms Ke is the fact that she was a director of D & L. Not only is that in itself insufficient, but there is positive and credible evidence from her to explain how the allegedly infringing garments could have been imported and sold without any actual or constructive knowledge on her part. 20 The application to join Ms Ke will be refused.

Zhan Yun Li 21 Ms Li is a resident of New South Wales. She has sworn an affidavit in which she has deposed as follows. 22 She was appointed secretary of D & L on 10 April 2001 and a director of XO Trading on 5 October 2001. She no longer holds those offices. D & L was at the time relevant to the Redberry proceeding a shareholder in Redberry. Ms Li has never been an officer of Redberry. She was appointed secretary of D & L and a director of XO Trading as a matter of convenience as she lived in Australia. From time to time she would sign documents of that company. She occasionally attended one of the warehouse premises of XO Trading. She was not involved in the operations of D & L, Redberry or XO Trading on a day-to-day basis. 23 Ms Li deposed as to the role of Sinotrans and Guo Xin Ke in terms similar to Ms Ke. Ms Li has had no involvement in any dealing with Sinotrans in relation to the garments the subject of the proceedings and she had no involvement in the selection or importation of those garments. 24 Ms Li has reviewed the discovery of Redberry and XO Trading and is not aware of any other relevant documents. 25 As to payment for garments and their subsequent sale to retailers, she deposed that these matters are in the normal course routinely attended to by employees of XO Trading. On occasion, when she was at the warehouse of XO Trading, she recalls signing a money transfer application. She only did this if no one else was available and as a matter of convenience. She similarly signed bank documents on behalf of D & L. The money transfer application usually dealt with large sums of money relating to a large numbers of invoices. When signing the money transfer application she was not aware of the contents of each of the separate invoices relating to the payment. The money transfer application does not identify what the garments the subject of the payment actually looked like. She did not participate in sales to retailers of any of the garments the subject of these proceedings as this was the job of employees of the businesses. 26 Again the evidence, not withstanding the completion of discovery, fails to establish an arguable case of actual or constructive knowledge on the part of Ms Li.

Sui Quian Ke 27 Sui Quian Ke held the office of director and secretary of XO Trading from 5 August 1998 to 28 August 2002. He held four shares in the company. This is no affidavit from him. Zhan Yun Li deposed that she had sometimes seen him at one of XO Trading's warehouses but did not know how much he was involved in the business. 28 The respondents' solicitor Ms Diana Thorburn deposed that she is informed by Sui Quian Ke and believes that he would attend the XO Trading premises from time to time but was not actively involved in the business of that company or any of the affairs of the companies sought to be in joined so far as they relate to the importation and sale of clothing. She deposed that he travelled overseas frequently and would be out of Australia for periods of one to two months at a time approximately on four or five occasions each year. 29 I find there is not arguable case made out against Sui Quian Ke.

Sui Dong Ke 30 He was appointed a director and secretary of XO Trading on 5 October 2001 and still holds that office. He has not sworn an affidavit. Zhan Yun Li deposed that she was aware that although Sui Dong Ke lived in Australia he had no involvement in the day to day running of XO Trading's business. 31 Ms Thorburn deposed that she was instructed that whilst Sui Dong Ke lived in Australia at the time relevant to the XO Trading proceeding he had no involvement in the day to day running of its business or any affairs of the companies sought to be joined in these proceedings. 32 I am not satisfied there is any arguable case for joinder of Sui Dong Ke. Delay 33 An additional reason for refusing joinder is that Review's solicitors first threatened to join the individual proposed respondents at the time of an unsuccessful mediation in October 2002. The notice of motion seeking joinder was not filed until 17 June 2003.

Conclusion 34 There will be orders for the joinder in Redberry proceeding of D & L and in the XO Trading proceeding of Redberry, Hot Chilli Group and D & L. There will be leave to file and serve amended applications and statements of claim consistent with these reasons. I note the observation of senior counsel for Review that in par 12A of the amended statement of claim the reference to pars 10 to 12 should be a reference to par 11(b). Otherwise the motions by notice dated 17 June 2003 will be dismissed. 35 Since the respondents were successful on the only contested issues there will be an order that in each proceeding Review pay the costs of each respondent to the motion. I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey .

Solicitors for the Respondents: Finlay, Thorburn & Marshall

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (5)