THE Court of Appeal has found that GraceKennedy Remittance Services (GKRS) Limited used the business plans of Paymaster Jamaica Limited to gain “unfair advantage” over the Audrey Marks-led company in the multi-bill payment market.

“There can be little doubt that the business plan had been transmitted to GKRS under an understanding of strict confidence. As a consequence, GKRS was bound by an obligation of confidence not to use the plan,” Justice Hazel Harris, who led a panel of three judges who heard the matter in 2013, wrote in a lengthy opinion.

The finding forms part of the judgement in Paymaster’s long-fought legal battle against GKRS and software programmer Paul Lowe over the copyright of the multi-payment software and breach of confidence.

In a blow to Paymaster, the court ruled that Lowe owned the copyright to the software and that damages are to be assessed there. In ruling in Paymaster’s favour regarding the business plan, the court ordered that damages should be assessed in Paymaster’s favour in the Supreme Court.

Costs were also awarded in Paymaster’s favour against GKRS. On the other hand, the court ordered that Paymaster should bear Lowe’s legal costs.

Paymaster has said that it has accepted the ruling of the court.

Marks has contended that the move by GKRS resulted in loss and damage to her company in excess of $1.5 billion.

In August 2000, Paymaster initiated a lawsuit against GraceKennedy Remittance Services Limited for breach of its intellectual property rights. Marks, Paymaster’s CEO, had contended that she had shared the entire content of Paymaster’s Business Plans with Grace in the late 1990s. These were disclosed in confidence as part of negotiations for Grace to invest in Paymaster.

These plans laid out Paymaster’s operational model, a description of Paymaster’s network and architecture, its expansion plans, its marketing plans, the Paymaster software program and technology details. Paymaster also claimed rights to the bill-payment software which Lowe had licensed to GKRS.

But the Supreme Court ruled against Paymaster in 2010, setting the stage for the appeal.

The appellate court said that the trial judge in the Supreme Court “erred in finding that GKRS did not use Paymaster’s business plan to its detriment”.

Harris wrote: “I am firmly of the view that GKRS made use of Paymaster’s business plan obtained in confidence and clearly took an unfair advantage of Paymaster while it had it in its possession.

“Some of the information in the business plan would have been available to the public and GKRS would have been at liberty to have used such information. However, Paymaster’s concepts and ideas in respect of the multi-payment model were private and GKRS should have exercised special care not to have used the information contained therein, prejudicially to Paymaster.”