Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2006] FCA 950

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2006] FCA 950 SPATIALINFO PTY LTD v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD and AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD VID 240 OF 2004 SUNDBERG J 28 JULY 2006 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 240 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SPATIALINFO PTY LTD (ACN 071 977 921)

Applicant and First Cross-Respondent

AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)

First Respondent and Cross-Claimant

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 006 741 340)

Second Respondent and Second Cross-Respondent

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 JULY 2006

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion of the second respondent, notice of which was filed on 7 March 2006, be dismissed. 2. The second respondent pay the applicant's and the first respondent's costs of the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 240 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SPATIALINFO PTY LTD (ACN 071 977 921)

Applicant and First Cross-Respondent

AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)

First Respondent and Cross-Claimant

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 006 741 340)

Second Respondent and Second Cross-Respondent

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 28 JULY 2006

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction 1 This proceeding was commenced in February 2004. Since then, I have been called on to adjudicate: (a) a dispute as to notices to produce and subpoenas served by the first respondent (Telstra) on the applicant (Spatialinfo) and the entities funding Spatialinfo's prosecution of the proceeding: Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 455; (b) a motion by Telstra for the striking out of part of Spatialinfo's claim or for summary judgment thereon: Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1629 (Spatialinfo No 2); and (c) a dispute as to the regime that should govern the treatment of confidential documents exchanged in the course of the proceeding: Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1902. At the hearing of the motion referred to at sub-para (b), I granted Spatialinfo leave to join the second respondent (Autodesk). That, and the reasons for judgment referred to at sub-para (b), necessitated the drawing of a second further amended statement of claim (the statement of claim). The statement of claim was filed on 13 December 2005. 2 By motion, notice of which was filed on 7 March 2006, Autodesk seeks, pursuant to O 11 r 16, the striking out of paras 33 to 61 of the statement of claim or, pursuant to O 20 r 2(1), summary judgment thereon (the primary relief). Those paragraphs constitute the whole of Spatialinfo's suit against Autodesk, in respect of which it seeks damages in excess of $70,000,000.00. That case consists of three claims. Paragraphs 33 to 47 plead infringement of copyright. Paragraphs 48 to 55 plead breach of confidence. Paragraphs 56 to 61 plead contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the TPA). To the extent that Autodesk fails to secure the relief described above, it seeks, pursuant to O 12 r 5, an order that Spatialinfo provide "a full and complete response to [its] request for further and better particulars dated 10 February 2006" (the secondary relief).