Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2004] FCA 183

Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2004] FCA 183

The non-disclosed details of the United States proceedings were not material because the United States discovery concerned static business records, whereas the Anton Piller orders were directed to dynamic, perishable electronic data recording the operation of the Kazaa system from moment to moment. Cooperation in not destroying static documents in the United States proceedings did not answer the risk that dynamic data would be overwritten, lost or unavailable unless preserved by snapshots. The undisclosed information would not have affected the decision to make the Anton Piller orders, so there was no basis to set them aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Copyright Proceeding Involving Anton Piller Orders Concerning Alleged Infringement of Musical Copyrights by Operation of a Peer to Peer Computer File Sharing System / Notices of Motion to Set Aside Anton Piller Orders Made Ex Parte on 5 February 2004, as Amended on 6 February 2004, on the Basis of Alleged Non Disclosure of Material Facts
Outcome
The applications to set aside the Anton Piller orders were dismissed insofar as they sought that relief; other relief in the notices of motion was stood over generally.
Legal Topics
['anton Piller Orders' 'ex Parte Relief' 'full and Frank Disclosure' 'material Non Disclosure' 'peer to Peer File Sharing' 'kazaa' 'electronic Evidence' 'dynamic and Static Computer Records']
['practice and Procedure' 'copyright' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['anton Piller Orders' 'ex Parte Relief' 'full and Frank Disclosure' 'material Non Disclosure' 'peer to Peer File Sharing' 'kazaa' 'electronic Evidence' 'dynamic and Static Computer Records']

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

Copyright Proceeding Involving Anton Piller Orders Concerning Alleged Infringement of Musical Copyrights by Operation of a Peer to Peer Computer File Sharing System / Notices of Motion to Set Aside Anton Piller Orders Made Ex Parte on 5 February 2004, as Amended on 6 February 2004, on the Basis of Alleged Non Disclosure of Material Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants failed to disclose material facts concerning related United States litigation when applying ex parte for Anton Piller orders.' 'Whether alleged cooperation by Sharman Networks, LEF and the Brilliant Digital parties in the United States proceedings was material to the decision to grant Anton Piller orders.' 'Whether the material sought under the Anton Piller orders was materially different from the documents sought in the United States proceedings because it concerned dynamic, perishable records rather than static records.' 'Whether the Anton Piller orders should be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The non-disclosed details of the United States proceedings were not material because the United States discovery concerned static business records, whereas the Anton Piller orders were directed to dynamic, perishable electronic data recording the operation of the Kazaa system from moment to moment. Cooperation in not destroying static documents in the United States proceedings did not answer the risk that dynamic data would be overwritten, lost or unavailable unless preserved by snapshots. The undisclosed information would not have affected the decision to make the Anton Piller orders, so there was no basis to set them aside.

Court Disposition

The applications to set aside the Anton Piller orders were dismissed insofar as they sought that relief; other relief in the notices of motion was stood over generally.

Orders

  • ['Insofar as they seek orders setting aside the orders made on 5 February 2004 (as amended on 6 February 2004), the notice of motion filed by the respondents on 10 February 2004 and the notice of motion filed by Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Limited and Kevin Glen Bermeister on 13 February 2004 each be...