Rhino
ceros (“Rhino”). 32.In his second witness statement, Mr Padalino states that the 3D models produced by Mr D’Aguanno were not made using Rhino but were produced on DPA computers and software. This contradicts Mr Padalino’s own evidence, reproduced above, that DPA only had 2D AutoCAD. It also contradicts Mr D’Aguanno’s evidence that he only had access to 3D AutoCAD on his own laptop as it was not loaded onto DPA’s computers. Mr Padalino also states at paragraph 10 of his second witness statement that Mr D’Aguanno only worked on his own laptop to produce CGI models using the Rhino software, and he should have saved those CGIs onto DPA’s server. When Mr Owusu asked Mr Padalino about paragraph 10 in crossexamination, I noted him replying, “Mr D’Aguanno also did 2D and other types of drawing work on DPA computers. It was CGI using specialist software that he did on his laptop”. He then corrected himself, saying that Mr D’Aguanno did “any type of AutoCAD” work on the office computer, not just 2D as he had previously said. 33.Mr Padalino’s evidence was therefore rather confused, in my view, about whether or not DPA provided 3D AutoCAD or only 2D AutoCAD to staff, and whether or not Mr D’Aguanno did only 2D drawing work, or also 3D work, on DPA’s computers. Mr Owusu sought to clarify his evidence, asking him directly in cross-examination whether DPA had a 3D AutoCAD licence at the relevant time and Mr Padalino said that it did. He resiled from his evidence that DPA had 2D AutoCAD but not 3D AutoCAD, saying that his first witness statement was not correct. 34.Mr Gill confirmed that he used both AutoCAD 2D and 3D in the DPA office, and that both were loaded onto the computer which he had been given by DPA to do his work. It was put to him by Mr Owusu that when he joined in February 2019 he only had access to 2D AutoCAD, per Mr Padalino’s initial evidence in his first witness statement, but Mr Gill gave the rather ambiguous response that he had “full” AutoCAD, saying, “Yes, but AutoCAD has basic versions of 2D and 3D within it. I have both 2D and 3D on my laptop”. He described it as “a basic tool – we need this to be able to work, to be able to draw”. Again, when pressed by Mr Owusu to clarify what he meant, he said that 3D AutoCAD was available within the DPA office environment, for him to use, when he joined in February 2019. Of course, Mr Gill cannot assist the court with whether DPA’s computers had 3D AutoCAD at the time that Mr D’Aguanno was working there, as Mr Gill arrived at DPA after Mr D’Aguanno had left. 35.It is Mr D’Aguanno’s case that Mr Padalino was barely computer literate and needed assistance with even very simple tasks on his computer. Although this may be somewhat exaggerated (and I make no finding whether it is or not), the fact that Mr Padalino was not proficient with computers was, in my judgment, readily apparent from his confused oral and written evidence. It also appears to be supported by his own written evidence, as Mr Padalino states in his first witness statement: “I do not enjoy using computer software and I do not have the time to detail my ideas and therefore I hand these designs over to my staff to finalise them and turn them into something that could be presented to the client”. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Padalino had little proficiency with, interest in, or understanding of computers or computer software. 36.Taking this and the confused and contradictory nature of Mr Padalino’s evidence on the point into account, I prefer Mr D’Aguanno’s evidence and find on the balance of probabilities that at the time that Mr D’Aguanno was working for DPA, it had only the programs listed by Mr Padalino in his first witness statement available for staff use on DPA computers, but Mr D’Aguanno also used personal copies of 3D AutoCAD and Rhino on his own laptop. Accordingly, I find that Mr Padalino is mistaken when he says that Mr D’Aguanno was using 3D AutoCAD to produce 3D models on the DPA computers. Rather, I find that it is more likely than not that he was using 3D AutoCAD to produce 3D models on his own laptop. I accept Mr Gill’s evidence that after Mr D’Aguanno had left, by the time he started working for DPA in February 2019, DPA had licensed 3D AutoCAD for employees’ use.
- 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
