BuildLaw | Dec 2017 30
Injunction granted
Applying established principles, the court considered whether there was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction.
The court noted that MML’s liability would be capped at £1 million if the contract terms Trant argued for applied– a sum which would be far exceeded if it had no access to the design information for a year. This supported the grant of an injunction, but was balanced by the fact that MML would lose considerable bargaining power if it were forced to restore access to ProjectWise immediately – if MML were successful in showing that Trant had no entitlement to access ProjectWise it would be able to ask for a premium price in respect of the design data.
Ultimately the court found that there was a high degree of assurance that Trant was entitled to the design data held in the ProjectWise system and that the balance of convenience was in favour of granting the injunction.
Conclusions and implications
The case offers no new developments on the granting of injunctions, but it should get parties thinking about how their BIM platforms are managed. It is not uncommon for consultants to include provisions that the use of intellectual property is contingent on payment of its fees, and under the Construction Act there is a statutory right to suspend services for non-payment of fees due.
It is worth stressing here the importance of payment notices and pay less notices to avoid payments unintentionally falling due and risking the suspension of services if the amount applied for is not paid.
In the BIM context, though, this case highlights that there are a number of questions around contractual provision for use of data. There is a clear conflict, evident from the issues arising in this case, between the wish for open data sharing amongst parties and the wish of the creators of the data to protect both their ownership rights but also to maintain their other contractual protections.
There are other issues concerning use of data on BIM projects including the need to contract for who is entitled to use, update and alter data and where liability for this sits, bearing in mind that the data is envisaged as being used throughout the life cycle of the building. There may need to be an ability to transfer rights from party to party. In addition, there is of course the issue of what data is required long-term to facilitate the operation, maintenance, refurbishment or alteration of the building where too much data may be as bad as too little.
Future proofing of data also requires to be considered - storage methods becoming obsolete (remember floppy discs?), where will data be stored, who is responsible for maintaining and paying for this, what if data is lost or corrupted, how is access to data provided and to who, what security arrangements are in place to stop data falling into the wrong hands?
None of these issues arose in this case but parties would be well advised to consider them in their contractual arrangements.
CMS provides clients with specialist, business-focused advice in law and tax matters. With 3,000 legal professionals across the world, working in sector-based teams and trained in project management, our focus is on our clients and fulfilling their objectives.
Shona Frame
Partner, Glasgow
Tim Atwood
Associate, London