The court established that while strict compliance with Section 42 of the Copyright Act is necessary for prima facie evidence, alternative forms of evidence can support copyright claims. Derivative works can obtain copyright protection if sufficient skill and labor were applied.

[1] In this appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the court of Appeal, the sole question of law for determination by this court reads as follows:

"Whether there should be strict compliance with the requirement of s 42 of the Copyright Act 1987 to raise the statutory presumption therein."

[2] As for the background facts, it would suffice to relate just the following. The 1st respondent, who claimed ownership by acquisition of the copyright, and the 2nd respondent, who claimed an exclusive licence to the copyright in Malaysia and three other countries, filed action against the appellant for alleged infringement of their copyright to six engineering drawings (see pp 158-163 of the Appeal Record) of a rotational water meter known as the Kent PSM water meter. The respondents alleged that the appellant caused to be manufactured, imported, and or offered for sale a water meter, known as PD97 TRP (infringing water meter), that was substantially modelled on the Kent PSM water meter. The respondents furthermore alleged that the infringing water meter was substantially the same as the Ningbo Water Meter, which in relation thereto, in Hong Kong Action 5768/2000, the 1st respondent had obtained judgment against a supplier of Ningbo water meters for infringement of the 1st respondent's copyright (though we must add that in Elster Metering Ltd & Anor v. Damini Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor, 2010 MarsdenLR 2472 , it was held by Azahar Mohamed J, as he then was, that the Ningbo water meter was independently developed). The appellant pleaded that the infringing water meter, manufactured by one Lianyungang Lianli Water Meter Co of China, was of original design.

[3] It was the finding of the trial court that the Kent PSM water meter was of original design (see 468AR), while the infringing water meter, it being substantially copied from the Kent PSM water meter, was not (see 476AR and 480AR), that the appellant had not rebutted the prima facie evidence that the respondents had ownership of the said copyright (see 478AR), and that there was infringement of the copyright by the appellant (see 486AR).

[4] At the court of Appeal, the appellant argued that the statutory declaration (SD) filed by the respondents pursuant to s 42 of the Copyright Act 1987 (the Act) "failed to adhere to the requirements of the section" in that the drawings annexed to the SD "lacked originality". By that, the appellant meant (that was so perceived by the court of Appeal) that the drawings annexed to the SD were not original drawings but "modified versions" of the original drawings which could not provide the prima facie evidence of copyright, and that without the original drawings, the court could not judge the originality of the drawings (see paras 3, 6, and 15 of the judgment of the court of Appeal), to which the respondents countered that each and every modification of the original drawings was annotated with a number and tabulated on the drawings, such that, with the log of modifications, the original design could be made out without the need to produce the entire set of original drawings and modifications thereto (see para 11 of the judgment of the court of Appeal). The court of Appeal held that "the determination of whether the nature of the original drawings was apparent from the drawings a