INTRODUCTION
1.This is a claim in copyright and breach of contract brought by a firm of architects (“DPA”) against two architectural designers who previously worked for it in that capacity (Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller), and the firm that they later set up, MUDA Architecture Limited (“MUDA”). 2.Mr D’Aguanno worked with DPA as an architectural designer from 14 November 2016 (initially on a 3-month trial basis) until 27 December 2019. Ms Muller worked with DPA as an architectural designer from February 2015 (initially on a 3-week trial basis) to 31 December 2019. Both are fully qualified architects in their home countries of Italy and Argentina respectively, but not registered with the Architects’ Registration Board of the United Kingdom. They are entitled to work as architectural designers in the UK. 3.DPA initially claimed that Mr D’Aguanno and Ms Muller were employees of DPA. It now accepts that they were self-employed contractors. Nevertheless, there remains some dispute about the terms upon which they provided services. DPA claims that each was provided with, and agreed, a written contract. Each denies this. Of particular relevance is DPA’s claim that Ms Muller provided her services pursuant to a contract dated 28 December 2016, which contained the following restrictive covenants:
“6.1. The Sub-Contractor shall not, during the course of provision of the Work or for a period of 12 months following the termination or expiry of this Agreement, provide like services to any competitor of the Contractor within Hertfordshire.
6.2. The Sub-Contractor shall not, during the course of provision of the Work or for a period of 12 months following the termination or expiry of this Agreement, solicit any of the Contractor’s clients and/ or employees with which the Sub-Contractor Ltd has dealings during the time that have been with DPA London Ltd and prior to the date of termination or expiry or any other clients of which the Sub-Contractor has knowledge. The Contractor may waive this restriction entirely or on a per-client, and/or per-staff- member basis upon receipt of a written request from the SubContractor. No waiver may be given if it shall violate any prior agreement between the Contractor and the client in question as to the sharing of the client’s details.” (the “
- INTRODUCTION
- Restrictive Covenants
- Claimant Works
- Copyright Infringement
- Breach of contract
- Restrictive covenants
- PROCEEDINGS
- Terms of Employment
- Storage of works created at DPA
- Software used at DPA at the relevant time
- Rhino
- CGI work at DPA
- DPA’s position
- None of these searches found the Rhino 3D CGI models.
- Wellington House
- Wellington House Works
- www.mudaarchitecture.com
- Use made by Mr D’Aguanno of 3D models removed from DPA
- ADA Stored Works
- DETERMINATION OF THE REMAINING ISSUES ON LIABILITY
- Issue 1 – Have the Defendants reproduced a substantial part of the Claimant Works or any of them, in a material form?
- Issue 2 – Have the Defendants or any of them possessed the Claimant Works or any of them in the course of a business.
- Issue 3 – Have the Defendants reproduced a substantial part of the Claimant Works or otherwise used the Claimant Works in their ongoing work for Mr Simpson?
- Issue 4 – Have the Defendants or any of them authorised the acts set out at paragraphs 1 to 3 above?
- Issue 5 – Did Mr D’Aguanno or Ms Muller fail to store the Claimant Works or any of them on DPA’s server?
- Issue 6 – Did Mr D’Aguanno or Ms Muller remove the Claimant Works or any of them from DPA’s offices and/or prevent DPA from having access to its files?
- Issue 7 - Does DPA have access to the Claimant Works which are in the possession of the Defendants?
- Issue 8 - Did Mr D’Aguanno or Ms Muller fail to return all of the Claimant’s property when their contracts with DPA ended?
- QUANTUM
- CONCLUSION