Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)
The Claimant, Signature Realty, is a property development company which, in 2013, commissioned architects to draw up plans in order to apply for planning permission to develop two office buildings in Sheffield into student accommodation. At the time the permission was granted, the Claimant did not own the buildings, and they were subsequently purchased from the landowner by the First Defendant, Fortis Developments. Following the purchase of the site, the Defendants together developed it into student accommodation.
The Claimant alleged that the Defendants had obtained its planning drawings from the Sheffield City Council planning website and infringed copyright in them in a variety of ways, including by: (i) using the planning drawings and altered copies thereof to market and sell units of student accommodation “off-plan” to investors before construction had commenced, and for construction tendering purposes; (ii) copying them in an altered form in order to create plans for the purpose of obtaining amendments to the existing planning permission; and (iii) constructing a building in accordance with the amended planning permission drawings.
At an interim hearing on 15th January 2016 the Claimant obtained summary judgment in respect of a number of the drawings in issue on several defences, in particular: (i) that the Claimant was estopped from asserting its copyright against the Defendants because it had allegedly stood by while the Defendants started building on the site; and (ii) that the Defendants had the benefit of an implied licence originally granted by the Claimant or the Claimant’s architects to the landowner and/or the Defendants.
At trial the Defendant challenged subsistence and infringement, and the Claimant’s entitlement to injunctive relief and additional damages. The Court held that copyright did subsist in the Claimant’s plans, and that the Defendants had infringed it in particular by creating and using identical copies of the Claimant’s plans for marketing and tendering purposes, and creating and using altered copies of some of the Claimant’s plans (including by constructing the buildings in question), but that it was not entitled to additional damages or to injunctive relief.
Mark Vanhegan QC and David Ivison appeared for the Claimant.
Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 3583 (Ch)