DPA (London) Ltd v D'Aguanno & Ors
Decision date: 3 September 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 2374 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
DPA sued two former contractors and their new firm for copyright infringement and breach of contract, alleging removal and use of 3D models/CGIs and breach of restrictive covenants. The court found Muller had not signed the written contract and was not bound by the covenants, and rejected most allegations of missing files or use; liability was established only for D’Aguanno’s admitted copying/possession of three 3D models. DPA was awarded nominal damages of £1 for those admitted infringements and breaches; all other claims were dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the specific missing files or specific use/reproduction to establish infringement or unauthorised copying; general or unsupported allegations fail. Where a defendant admits limited unauthorised copying but there is no evidence of commercial use or loss, only nominal damages may be appropriate. Credibility and contemporaneous documentary/file-location evidence are pivotal in determining contract formation, restrictive covenant binding and alleged removals.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge criticised the claimant’s poor record‑keeping and lack of technical understanding, noting such deficiencies undermine technical allegations about file storage and software use. The court also observed that routine practical workflows (such as outsourcing CGI work and reliance on professional surveys) can explain similarities between schemes without implying copying.