Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 357

Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 357

The hearing dates were vacated because the evidence showed that the matter could not adequately be prepared for hearing by the appointed date, defaults in complying with the timetable were attributable to both parties, and no undue hardship or substantial prejudice to the applicants was established beyond prejudice capable of being remedied by costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion by the First and Third Respondents to Vacate Hearing Dates in Proceedings Involving an Application Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Reasons for Granting Vacation of Hearing Dates Before the Listed Hearing
Outcome
Motion granted; hearing dates vacated with costs thrown away payable by the first and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'costs Thrown Away' 'copyright Infringement Threats Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'copyright'] ['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'costs Thrown Away' 'copyright Infringement Threats Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion by the First and Third Respondents to Vacate Hearing Dates in Proceedings Involving an Application Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Reasons for Granting Vacation of Hearing Dates Before the Listed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing dates fixed for 11-15 April 2005 should be vacated because the matter could not reasonably be ready for a proper hearing by 11 April 2005.' 'Whether any prejudice to the applicants from vacating the hearing dates could be remedied by a costs order.' "Whether defaults in complying with the directions timetable and the applicants' asserted urgency justified refusing the vacation of hearing dates."]

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing dates were vacated because the evidence showed that the matter could not adequately be prepared for hearing by the appointed date, defaults in complying with the timetable were attributable to both parties, and no undue hardship or substantial prejudice to the applicants was established beyond prejudice capable of being remedied by costs.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; hearing dates vacated with costs thrown away payable by the first and third respondents.

Orders

  • ['The hearing dates (11-15 April 2005) are vacated.' 'The First and Third Respondents pay any costs of the Applicants thrown away as a consequence of this late application to vacate the hearing dates.' 'The Applicants have leave to tax and pursue recovery of these costs forthwith.']