Copyright in building plans for project homes infringed
Tamawood Limited v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)  FCAFC 65 In 2007, Tamawood issued proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Habitare Developments, Bloomer Constructions and Mondo Architects (and their directors) alleging infringement of Tamawood’s copyright in two plans for project homes called the Torrington and the Conondale/Dunkeld (“Dunkeld”). Among other things, the primary judge found that Tamawood’s copyright in only the Torrington plan had been infringed. In its decision handed down on 21 May 2015, the Full Federal Court held that copyright in both of Tamawood’s plans had been infringed.
DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM v. KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN  7 CLJ 59
HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
S NANTHA BALAN JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: S23-44-2008]
09 JULY 2015
TORT: Defamation - Libel in newspaper - Application to re-amend defence to include a lesser/lower defamatory meaning - Defendant intended to rely on particulars in subsequent events to support plea of justification - Whether defendant could rely on criminal conviction for purpose of defence of justification - Whether impugned words conveyed a lesser meaning which was innocuous and harmless - Whether particulars provided in proposed re-amended defence supported lesser meaning - Whether defendant could rely on evidence of subsequent events for plea of justification and/or qualified privilege - Whether criminal conviction and subsequent events relevant to prove plaintiff's character - Whether plaintiff was "libel proof" - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 43, 55
SC: Husband can’t say ‘no income’ to avoid payment
R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent, New Delhi
The Supreme Court today ruled that the man could not avoid payment of maintenance to separated or divorced wife pleading that he had no income.
“Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bad excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law.
Full Federal Court finds infringement of Tamawood’s copyright in building plans
By: John Hannebery and Jessica Sapountsis
Directors Liability for Insolvency: Do what you say and perform your duties or face personal liability
Duties on directors when faced with insolvency
The point at which a company becomes insolvent is not always clear. The Courts will consider “various indicia of insolvency”, including the company’s ability to raise further capital and access to alternative finance. In some situations, a director or related entity may be willing and able to contribute funds to the company to allow it to pay its debts. This can affect whether a company is viewed as solvent or not. Once insolvency is reasonably suspected, directors must prevent the company from incurring further debts or risk being held personally liable for the debts incurred. The Federal Court in Trinick as Liquidator of Forgione Family Group Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Forgione Family Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Forgione  FCA 642 recently considered these issues.
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK