Copyright and Contract - Harrison and Buchanan
This was a claim for breach of contract and copyright infringement. The contract claim was based on the claimant's allegation that the defendants commissioned him to create drawings of components for an electrochemical water conditioner. The copyright claim was based on the claimant's further allegation that copyright subsisted in those drawings, that he was the first owner of those copyrights and that the defendants had used the drawings without his licence. The defendants denied that there was a binding agreement and argued that the drawings were not fit for purpose. The action came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 21 Nov 2025. By para [21] of his judgment in Harrison (t/a Rayson Engineering) v Buchanan and Another [2025] EWHC 3283 (IPEC), which he handed down on 17 Dec 2025, His Honour found that there was an agreement between the parties, the principal terms of which were that the claimant would create technical drawings of the conditioner and that the second defendant would pay for them. He found no evidence that the drawings were not fit for purpose at para [27]. He awarded the claimant £13,880 damages, including interest at [35]. He made no order as to costs.
Whether there was an Agreement
The claimant alleged that he created drawings of the conditioner at the request of the second defendant with a promise of payment for his work and expertise. The agreement was made orally on or about 22 May 2022. The claimant said that it contained the following express terms:(a) He would create and supply drawings for eight sizes of the conditioner.
(b) He would license the defendants to use the drawings for the manufacture of conditioners, and the defendants would be entitled to keep the drawings.
(c) The defendants would not be entitled to benefit from the licence until payment had been made.
(d) Payment would be made within a reasonable time.
The defendants admitted that there had been discussions between the claimant and the second defendant on or around 22 May 2022 and that the claimant had agreed to make the drawings without charge to alleviate his boredom and an alleged drinking problem, the existence of which the claimant disputed. Later in the year, the defendants invited the claimant to invest in a proposed startup company, which invitation he declined. In an email dated 23 Sept 2022, the second defendant wrote:
"It goes without saying that your support with the drawings is totally appreciated and obviously I will settle financially with you inclusive of any material costs that their has been" [sic].
"It goes without saying that your support with the drawings is totally appreciated and obviously I will settle financially with you inclusive of any material costs that their has been" [sic].
When cross-examined on this email, the defendants admitted that the claimant was to be paid for his efforts.
Performance of the Agreement
The claimant contended that he fully performed his obligations under the agreement. He created the drawings between 13 Aug 2022 and 18 April 2023. Copies of some of those drawings were exhibited to his particulars of claim but the originals were held by the defendants.
At trial, the defendants argued that the drawings were not fit for purpose. They produced a letter from the Associate General Director of a French company specialising in the making and machining of mechanical equipment, stating that his company would not proceed with the implementation of the defendants' water treatment project "because the specifications provided and associated plans were not sufficiently robust."
The claimant contended that he fully performed his obligations under the agreement. He created the drawings between 13 Aug 2022 and 18 April 2023. Copies of some of those drawings were exhibited to his particulars of claim but the originals were held by the defendants.
At trial, the defendants argued that the drawings were not fit for purpose. They produced a letter from the Associate General Director of a French company specialising in the making and machining of mechanical equipment, stating that his company would not proceed with the implementation of the defendants' water treatment project "because the specifications provided and associated plans were not sufficiently robust."
Judge Hacon rejected the defendants' arguments at para [26]:
"The difficulty with an allegation that there was an implied term of fitness for purpose in the Agreement is that there was no evidential basis for establishing either (i) the criteria which the Drawings would have had to meet in order to be fit for purpose in all the circumstances, or (ii) that such a term including those criteria was to be implied according to the usual principles of law governing implied terms, or (iii) why the Drawings failed to satisfy those criteria, if they did."
"The difficulty with an allegation that there was an implied term of fitness for purpose in the Agreement is that there was no evidential basis for establishing either (i) the criteria which the Drawings would have had to meet in order to be fit for purpose in all the circumstances, or (ii) that such a term including those criteria was to be implied according to the usual principles of law governing implied terms, or (iii) why the Drawings failed to satisfy those criteria, if they did."
The Copyright Claim
The judge noted at para [14] that the claimant's counsel did not pursue the claim for copyright infringement on theground that there was insufficient evidence available for the court to reach a conclusion. The claimant had copies of only a few of the drawings. None of the originals were in court. His Honour added that he would have required some persuading that the claimant was entitled to claim payment of the sum due for his grant of a licence under the copyrights in the drawings (assuming there was an agreement for such payment) as well as damages flowing from the lack of a licence.
The Award
Emails were exchanged in 2023, indicating that the defendants were willing to pay and the claimant was willing to accept €15,000 for his work. As the exchange rate was €1.14 to £1, Judge Hacon assessed damages at £13,160 which totalled £13,880 when accrued interest of £720 at 2% per annum was added.
Further Information
Anyone wishing to discuss this case may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page at any other time.
Comments