Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd

Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 108 was a Full Court appeal arising from a long-running commercial fight in the residential lifts market. Lift Shop was a supplier of lifts, mainly in residential settings. The corporate respondents were trade rivals, and the Full Court referred to them collectively as Next Level Elevators or NLE.

The dispute was not a simple one-issue copyright case. Lift Shop alleged both copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information. That matters because those claims protect different interests and require different proof. Copyright is concerned with original material and unauthorised use. Breach of confidence is concerned with information that is truly confidential, identified with enough precision, and used in circumstances where confidence should be respected.

The proceedings began on 29 May 2020 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and, according to the Full Court, were fiercely fought and prolonged. They concluded substantively on 30 July 2024. Lift Shop had some success because NLE admitted copyright infringement. But Lift Shop did not win across the board. The primary judge rejected its breach of confidence claim and also found that Lift Shop was not entitled to additional damages for the copyright infringement.

Lift Shop then appealed. It challenged the rejection of the confidence claim, the ruling on additional damages, and a procedural ruling admitting documents obtained from a search of Lift Shop's website by NLE's solicitors. The Full Court granted leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal and ordered Lift Shop to pay the respondents' costs.

The appeal raised two main groups of issues.

First, there was the copyright damages issue. Section 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 allows a copyright owner to seek relief for infringement, including damages or an account of profits. It also allows a court, when assessing damages, to award additional damages if that is proper having regard to matters such as flagrancy, deterrence, post-infringement conduct, benefits obtained by the defendant and other relevant matters. Lift Shop argued that the primary judge should not have decided non-entitlement to additional damages before Lift Shop had elected between damages and an account of profits, and before any assessment of quantum had taken place.

Secondly, there was the confidential information case. The catchwords show that the Full Court considered whether the primary judge erred in finding no breach of confidence. The issues included difficulty in identifying the alleged confidential information, whether a customer quote was confidential when it was available on a public website, whether the respondents' solicitors made improper use of material obtained from Lift Shop's website, and whether a Lift Shop employee supplied confidential information to the corporate respondents by accessing a customer relations management database while undertaking ordinary work activities.

The appeal also touched on how threatening communications should be considered in assessing flagrancy for additional damages, particularly in the context of earlier denials of copyright infringement.

A major feature of the case was the way the trial had been structured. On 18 August 2020, the primary judge made an order by agreement that all issues of liability and non-pecuniary relief would be heard separately from, and before, issues of quantum of any pecuniary relief. In other words, the case was split into a liability stage and a later quantum stage.

After the primary judgment, the judge made a declaration that if Lift Shop elected to pursue damages under s 115 of the Copyright Act for the relevant infringements, its claim was limited to damages under s 115(2) and it was not entitled to additional damages under s 115(4). Lift Shop argued on appeal that this was not open because additional damages should only be dealt with after election and during the assessment of damages.

The Full Court rejected that argument. The court said that the primary judge had adopted an approach that is not uncommon in intellectual property cases, namely determining whether there is an entitlement to additional damages as part of the separate determination of liability before quantum is assessed. The court added that, ideally, an order for separate determination should deal explicitly with entitlement to additional damages, for example by saying so in terms.

The Full Court also placed weight on the way Lift Shop had run the case at trial. The court noted that Lift Shop had itself urged the primary judge to determine liability to additional damages at the liability stage, with quantification to be dealt with later on any inquiry as to damages. The Full Court said Lift Shop's appeal argument was inconsistent with the approach it had adopted below. The court also noted that Lift Shop's original prayer for relief on appeal had itself sought a declaration of entitlement to pursue additional damages before any election and before any determination of quantum, although that prayer was later abandoned.

For business readers, this part of the case is a reminder that procedure is not just technical background. The way parties agree to split issues, and the way they frame their submissions, can materially affect the course of the case and the arguments available on appeal.

The Full Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.

On the copyright issue, the court upheld the primary judge's approach to deciding entitlement to additional damages at the liability stage in a split trial. The court described that approach as not uncommon in intellectual property cases. It did not accept Lift Shop's argument that the court was legally prevented from deciding the entitlement issue before election between damages and an account of profits, or before quantum was assessed.

On the confidential information issues, the appeal also failed. The catchwords and introduction show that the Full Court upheld the primary judge's conclusion that Lift Shop had not established breach of confidence. The published material points to several reasons that were in play, including difficulty identifying the confidential information and the fact that at least one customer quote was not confidential because it was available on a public website.

The challenge to the procedural ruling about documents obtained from a search of Lift Shop's website also did not produce any different result. The appeal as a whole was dismissed, and Lift Shop was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

The Full Court also made some broader observations about the way the appeal had been presented. It described the amended notice of appeal as lengthy, diffuse and difficult to manage, with multiple separate grounds and detailed particulars raising further distinct points. That is not a legal rule, but it is a practical signal that appellate courts expect focused grounds and coherent argument.

This case is best read as a practical warning against treating all information assets as if they are protected in the same way. A business may own copyright in original website text, brochures, diagrams or other content, but that does not mean every related piece of commercial information is also confidential. If you want to protect customer quotes, CRM records, pricing structures, internal sales data or know-how, you need to be able to identify that information clearly and show that it was genuinely confidential and handled that way.

The catchwords are especially important for businesses that publish heavily online. They indicate that a customer quote was found not to be confidential, including because it was available on a public website. That does not mean website material can never be protected. It may still be protected by copyright. But public availability can seriously weaken a confidence claim.

The case also shows that additional damages are a separate question from basic infringement. Even where infringement is admitted, a court may still conclude that additional damages are not available or not appropriate. Businesses should not assume that proving infringement automatically opens the door to a punitive or deterrent uplift.

There is also a litigation management lesson. If your case is split into liability and quantum, the court may decide some damages-related entitlement questions early. Before agreeing to that structure, businesses should understand what issues may be determined at the first stage and how that may affect settlement strategy, evidence preparation and appeal options.

Finally, the decision is a reminder to keep public-facing content and internal confidential material separate in practice, not just in theory. If staff can access sensitive CRM or pricing information in the ordinary course of work, your business should have clear access controls, confidentiality terms and internal policies so that you can later identify what was confidential, who had access, and on what basis.

The published material shows that the appeal involved more than abstract legal principles. It also concerned how information was obtained and used in a competitive commercial setting. One issue was whether the respondents' solicitors had improperly used material obtained from Lift Shop's website. Another was whether a Lift Shop employee supplied confidential information to the corporate respondents by accessing a customer relations management database while undertaking ordinary work activities.

Because the available text is incomplete, the full factual detail behind those allegations is not visible here. Even so, the issues identified by the court are commercially familiar. Businesses often face disputes about whether information came from public sources, from ordinary employee access, or from genuinely confidential internal systems. Those distinctions matter. Publicly available material may still raise copyright issues, but it is much harder to frame as confidential information. Internal database access may raise confidence issues, but the claimant still needs to identify the information and show why the circumstances imported confidence.

For business owners, the practical point is to document both sides of the equation. If you want to protect information, record why it is confidential, who can access it, and what restrictions apply. If your business is gathering competitor material, make sure your team can show what came from public sources and how it was obtained.

The Full Court judgment is dated 21 August 2025. The appeal was from Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2G 554. The hearing date recorded on the judgment page is 25 March 2025. The published material states that the underlying proceedings commenced on 29 May 2020, the primary judgment was delivered on 26 June 2024, and further substantive orders were made on 30 July 2024.

This page remains in review status because the available text is incomplete. The key outcome and the main legal points are clear, but some detail about the underlying conduct and the court's reasoning on each appeal ground is not fully visible from the published extract available here.