Issue 4 – Have the Defendants or any of them authorised the acts set out at paragraphs 1 to 3 above?
82.There is no evidence before me that Ms Muller knew of or authorised Mr
- 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