Hix Investment Pty Ltd v Wong

The available reasons for this decision are incomplete. The orders, the parties, the nature of the dispute, the legal framework for interlocutory injunctions, and the broad shape of the evidence are clear. However, the publicly available text reviewed cuts off during the court's discussion of the alleged infringement examples.

That means this page can confidently explain the commercial story, the claims brought, the legal test the court applied, and the fact that the application was dismissed with costs. It cannot safely present a complete, issue-by-issue account of the judge's final reasoning on every pleaded cause of action. If you need to rely on the case for a detailed legal proposition, the full judgment should be checked.

Hix Investment Pty Ltd supplied portable homes in Australia. The reasons say its products were based on designs initially created by a Chinese supplier, Hebei Weizhengheng Modular House Technology Co Limited. Hix's case was that these were not simply off-the-shelf supplier plans. It said that over many years it had significantly refined and enhanced the generic floor plans using client feedback and internal expertise.

The modifications described in the evidence were detailed and practical. They included changing materials and appliances, labelling fixtures and fittings, moving lights, cupboards and windows, changing furniture placement, adding robes and storage, changing door swings, altering room widths and window sizes, swapping fixture locations, adjusting bathroom and laundry configurations, changing plumbing and electrical positions, and marking up service lines and building materials. Hix also said it made changes to meet Australian electrical compliance requirements and that this compliance capability was a distinctive part of its offering.

Hix said finalised designs were converted into engineering designs for the supplier to manufacture from, and then curated into 3D versions by a third-party subcontractor. In other words, Hix's commercial position was that it had taken generic supplier material and turned it into a more developed and market-ready product suite.

Mr Wong joined Hix in April 2023 as Digital Marketing Manager. His contract included intellectual property and confidentiality clauses. During his employment he was given a company phone and laptop and access to systems and information including Shopify, Dropbox, client lists, supplier information and contact details. Hix also said he had access to floor plans, renders, photographs and supplier information, and received training about electrical compliance issues relevant to the products.

His employment ended on 21 August 2023. He then returned to New Zealand, incorporated SGW Capital Limited, and began a business importing and selling expandable and portable homes. Hix alleged that websites and social media associated with the respondents used copied website material, copied photographs, and infringing floor plans and 3D drawings for multiple products. Hix also pointed to domain registrations, a Shopify alert about a CSV download and email to Mr Wong's personal address, use of a photograph taken during employment, and access to a freelancer platform as part of the surrounding conduct.

The respondents' answer was commercially straightforward. Mr Wong said he used the same supplier as Hix, that the supplier provided floor plans, designs and specifications, and that freelance designers were then used to make simplified floor plans and 3D models for his own business. He denied taking or copying Hix's modified plans. He said similarities were explained by the common supplier, the limited size and layout options for these products, and the fact that customers often ask for similar modifications. He also said that when he visited suppliers in China he observed that similar products and similar floor plans were common across the market.

This was not the final trial. Hix came to court seeking urgent interlocutory relief. It wanted orders restraining the respondents from using and operating platforms containing materials that allegedly infringed Hix's copyright. It also sought ancillary orders for preservation of evidence and disclosure of entities or businesses used to facilitate the alleged infringement.

The reasons also note that in the substantive proceeding Hix sought permanent injunctions, delivery up and destruction of infringing hard copy material, deletion of electronic material, declaratory relief, and orders relating to an account of profits and or damages. So the interlocutory application was the urgent front end of a broader commercial dispute.

Timing mattered. The application was first provided to the court by email on 28 November 2024, filed on 2 December 2024, and heard on 9 December 2024 because Hix requested that it be heard before 16 December 2024. That urgency is relevant because courts are generally cautious about making orders that can effectively shut down part of a business before the evidence is fully tested at trial.

The court said the principles governing interlocutory injunctions were well settled. The two main inquiries were whether Hix had shown a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. Those questions are related. A court looks at the apparent strength of the case and the practical consequences of granting or refusing relief.

Hix relied on three causes of action: copyright infringement, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties. The statutory duties referred to in the catchwords included alleged breaches of sections 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

On copyright, the reasons set out the usual framework. Copyright must subsist in an original work. The applicant must show ownership or entitlement. Infringement by reproduction requires both objective similarity and some causal connection between the copyright work and the allegedly infringing work. The reasons cite the established principle that similarity alone is not enough. There must be evidence supporting an inference that the respondent actually used the applicant's work, rather than independently creating a similar work or obtaining similar material from another source.

That issue was especially important here because both sides were dealing with the same supplier. Hix said its modified plans and 3D works were original artistic works and that Australian citizens involved in creating them were qualified persons for copyright purposes. The respondents said their materials came from the same supplier and were then reworked by their own freelance designers. That meant the court had to consider whether the similarities pointed to copying of Hix's modified works, or whether they could be explained by a common source and the practical limits of portable home design.

The reasons also note an evidentiary point that often matters in urgent applications. The respondents criticised parts of Hix's evidence as being on information and belief, but the court noted that in an interlocutory hearing the hearsay rule does not apply in the same way if the source is identified. At the same time, the court accepted that some opinion evidence in the solicitor's affidavit comparing floor plans should be struck out. That is a useful reminder that even in urgent applications, evidence still needs to be presented carefully.

Meagher J dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered Hix to pay the respondents' costs of that application. That much is clear from the formal orders and the opening parts of the reasons.

The available reasons also make clear that the court applied the orthodox interlocutory injunction test and considered the pleaded copyright, contract, fiduciary duty and statutory duty claims. The catchwords expressly record the issues as whether Hix had made out a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience weighed in favour of an injunction.

Because the available text is truncated, it is not possible here to give a complete, reliable breakdown of exactly how the court resolved each pleaded cause of action or each alleged example of copying. What can safely be said is that Hix did not persuade the court to grant urgent restraints over the respondents' websites and related conduct on the material then before it.

The respondents had also put forward evidence that restraining the websites would have serious commercial consequences for their business, including inability to make sales, possible staff redundancies, difficulty paying rent and utilities, reputational harm and limits on growth. The court's dismissal means that, at least at the interlocutory stage, those practical consequences were not outweighed by Hix's case for urgent intervention.

This case is highly relevant to businesses that do not create every asset from scratch. Many businesses start with supplier plans, specifications, stock images, CAD files, product descriptions or standard layouts. They then improve those materials over time and understandably come to see the result as part of their own intellectual property. That may be commercially true, but in court you still need evidence that clearly separates the supplier's starting point from your business's original contribution.

If your business wants to enforce rights quickly, you should be able to answer some basic questions without scrambling. What exactly did the supplier provide? What did your team change? Who made those changes? Were they employees or contractors? Do your contracts assign copyright properly? When were the changes made? What records show the other side had access to your version rather than just the supplier's version? If you cannot answer those questions with documents, an urgent injunction application becomes much harder.

The case also shows the overlap between intellectual property disputes and ordinary systems management. Hix's allegations were not limited to floor plans and 3D images. They also involved Shopify access, Dropbox access, freelancer information, domain registrations and website content. For many businesses, the first protective step is not litigation. It is account control. That means role-based access, prompt offboarding, password resets, central control of domains, audit logs, device return procedures and signed confidentiality and IP clauses.

Another practical point is that courts are cautious about orders that may effectively stop a respondent trading before trial. If the respondent's business depends heavily on its website and online advertising, the court will take that prejudice seriously. So even where an applicant believes copying is obvious, it still needs to show why immediate restraint is justified and why damages or later relief would not be enough.

The reasons show several categories of evidence that commonly matter in disputes of this kind. First, there were the underlying design materials themselves, including floor plans, markups, renders and 3D drawings. Second, there were the contractual documents, especially the employment contract clauses dealing with intellectual property and confidentiality. Third, there was digital conduct evidence, such as domain registrations, Shopify alerts, email activity, social media posts and access to freelancer platforms.

There is also a useful caution in the way the evidence was handled. The court noted that some parts of the solicitor's affidavit were based on identified sources and could be considered in an interlocutory setting. But the respondents objected to opinion evidence comparing floor plans, and Hix accepted that this opinion evidence should be struck out. Businesses should take from that the importance of using proper evidence. A side-by-side comparison can be useful, but argumentative commentary from a witness who is not giving admissible expert evidence may not carry the weight a business hopes it will.

The respondents' evidence also mattered because it offered an alternative explanation for the similarities. Mr Wong said the same supplier provided plans and product information, that freelance designers prepared the respondents' materials, and that similar layouts were common in the market. In copyright cases, especially at an urgent stage, a plausible independent explanation can be enough to make the applicant's path much harder unless the applicant has strong evidence of actual use of its own work.

The judgment is dated 16 December 2024. The interlocutory application was provided to the court by email on 28 November 2024, filed on 2 December 2024, and heard on 9 December 2024. The orders made on 16 December 2024 dismissed the application and awarded the respondents their costs of that application.

This page should be read as a practical explainer of the interlocutory decision based on the available reasons. Because the available text is incomplete, the detailed reasoning on each pleaded claim should be checked in the full judgment before the case is relied on for a precise legal proposition.