Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2004] FCA 934

Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2004] FCA 934

The order sought was refused because there was no evidence about any premises other than the i-Hug Commonwealth Street and Foster Street premises, so a wider order was unwarranted, and even as to those premises there was no material suggesting that the router used was not apparatus or equipment forming part of the telecommunications service or that what was recorded was a communication within the meaning of the Act. Requiring the applicants to provide detailed evidence in those circumstances would not be a proper exercise of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Execution of Anton Piller Orders / Interlocutory Application by the First to Fifth Respondents for Evidence About Steps Taken During Execution of Anton Piller Orders
Outcome
Paragraph 1 of the first to fifth respondents' notice of motion filed on 21 June 2004 was refused, with costs to the applicants.
Legal Topics
['anton Piller Orders' 'telecommunications Interception' 'interlocutory Evidence Orders' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'telecommunications Law'] ['anton Piller Orders' 'telecommunications Interception' 'interlocutory Evidence Orders' 'costs']

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

Notice of Motion in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Execution of Anton Piller Orders / Interlocutory Application by the First to Fifth Respondents for Evidence About Steps Taken During Execution of Anton Piller Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants and their representatives should be required to file and serve evidence disclosing steps taken during execution of the Anton Piller orders to monitor, intercept, capture, record or retrieve communications at specified premises.' 'Whether there was sufficient material suggesting a possible breach of s 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth).' 'Whether any recording was made by means of apparatus or equipment that was not part of a telecommunications service within s 6(2) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth).' 'Whether what was recorded was a communication within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth).' 'Whether costs should be ordered, including whether on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order sought was refused because there was no evidence about any premises other than the i-Hug Commonwealth Street and Foster Street premises, so a wider order was unwarranted, and even as to those premises there was no material suggesting that the router used was not apparatus or equipment forming part of the telecommunications service or that what was recorded was a communication within the meaning of the Act. Requiring the applicants to provide detailed evidence in those circumstances would not be a proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 1 of the first to fifth respondents' notice of motion filed on 21 June 2004 was refused, with costs to the applicants.

Orders

  • ['The order sought in para 1 of the notice of motion filed on 21 June 2004 by the first to fifth respondents be refused.' 'The first to fifth respondents pay the costs of the applicants in respect of that paragraph of the motion. Those costs may be assessed or taxed forthwith.']