Details of a civil suit show that Hopkins Architects have taken the Jersey Development Company to court over alleged copyright infringements.
It comes as another blow to the embattled JDC – who are responsible for property and land development for the States – which has been working to move ahead with the first building of the centre after announcing it had secured its first tenant.
Last night ministers and the JDC defended the plans for the six-block finance centre during a tense public meeting at the Town Hall.
Meanwhile, on Sunday around 2,000 Islanders circled the Esplanade car park in protest against the scheme.
Hopkins, who were employed to design ‘master’ plans for the Esplanade Quarter in 2007 and who continued to work on the project as it changed hands over a number of years, are seeking damages following its claim for copyright infringement, which could cost the JDC hundreds of thousands of pounds if the court orders the company to pay a retrospective licence fee.
Papers filed with the Royal Court claim that as part of an earlier agreement with former Esplanade Quarter project leaders Harcourt – who were eventually replaced by States developers – Hopkins had agreed a £900,000 licence fee with the private developers for use of the material.
Hopkins allege that the JDC was not licensed to use the ‘Harcourt Masterplan’, finalised in October 2008, or its later ‘New Masterplan’, created when the project was handed over to the Waterfront Enterprise Board, which went on to become the JDC.
It is also claimed that the JDC has benefited by unlawfully using unlicensed material in planning applications and through the publication of plans on the gov.je website.
Hopkins have asked the Royal Court to grant an injunction to stop the JDC allegedly breaching the copyright of the New Masterplan in the future and requested the court to order the forfeiture of all infringing copies of the design work.
The UK firm has also asked for an inquiry into the potential amount in damages due, and the payment of those damages, following its allegations.
In lieu of holding such an investigation, Hopkins have asked the court to consider ordering the JDC to pay an amount equivalent to a licence fee in compensation.
However, the JDC has denied any wrongdoing, saying that the earlier 2008 Masterplan agreement included expressly stated terms that the client would have a licence to copy and use, and allow consultants and contractors to copy and use, the material.
The JDC’s answer also said that ‘at all material times the defendant believed that it could lawfully act in the manner complained of’.
It later added: ‘It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief against the defendant.’
