31 August 2026
House plans are not just construction documents. They can also be valuable copyright assets.
Two recent Australian court decisions are a useful reminder that disputes over architectural plans can follow a project well beyond the design stage — including into construction, property sales and litigation over the proceeds.
The MG Homes dispute
In MG Homes Pty Ltd v Grocorp Homes Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1090, the underlying proceeding concerns alleged copyright infringement involving townhouse plans.
MG Homes claims that copies of its plans were obtained and amended for another development, with dimensions from its plans allegedly replicated. Those infringement allegations remain contested.
While the main copyright case continues, MG Homes sought interim orders freezing proceeds from sales of townhouses in the development.
The Federal Court refused.
The Court was not satisfied there was evidence of a real risk that assets would be dissipated or that the respondents would be unable to satisfy a future judgment. It also considered damages would be an adequate remedy and that freezing the development proceeds could interfere with the respondents' business operations.
The decision does not decide whether copyright was infringed. But it shows how quickly an IP dispute involving building plans can become commercially significant once construction and sales are underway.
Metricon is also fighting over house plans
A second recent case, Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Kosala Premaratne [2026] FedCFamC2G 1469, also concerns alleged copying of residential building plans.
Metricon alleges that plans it had provided to prospective customers were later supplied to another architectural business and used in connection with plans for a different builder. Copyright subsistence, ownership and substantial reproduction remain disputed.
The latest decision dealt with Metricon's application to amend its pleadings rather than deciding the infringement claim itself.
One issue concerned Australia's six-year limitation period for copyright infringement. The Court considered that, for an authorisation claim, the relevant timing is tied to when the allegedly authorised infringement occurred — not simply when the earlier acts said to constitute authorisation took place.
The bigger lesson for builders and designers
These cases are still working their way through the courts, so they should not be treated as final findings of infringement.
But the commercial lesson is already clear.
If architectural plans form part of your business, it is worth knowing:
-
who owns the copyright;
-
whether copyright has been properly assigned;
-
what clients and contractors are permitted to do with the plans;
-
who receives copies; and
-
what happens when a project moves to another designer, builder or developer.
A set of plans can be much more than a drawing.
It can be an IP asset — and mishandling it can turn into a much bigger dispute once construction starts.
Working with valuable designs, plans or other creative material?
IP Solved can help you identify what IP rights exist, who owns them and how they should be protected before a dispute arises.
Talk to the IP Solved team about protecting your intellectual property.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Specific advice should be obtained for your business and target markets.
