Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Miyamoto (No 2) [2003] FCA 894

Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Miyamoto (No 2) [2003] FCA 894

The motion was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the seventh and eighth respondents had given an adequate explanation for their prolonged failure to file a defence despite ample opportunity and repeated indications from the applicants' solicitors that the matter was proceeding to judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Copyright Infringement in Sound Recordings / Notice of Motion by the Seventh and Eighth Respondents for Leave to File an Appearance and Defence Out of Time and to Prevent Delivery or Entry of Judgment Against Them
Outcome
Motion dismissed; applicants granted leave to enter orders against the seventh and eighth respondents; costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['infringement of Copyright in Sound Recordings' 'leave to File Defence Out of Time' 'entry of Orders' 'costs' 'summary Judgment']
['copyright' 'civil Procedure'] ['infringement of Copyright in Sound Recordings' 'leave to File Defence Out of Time' 'entry of Orders' 'costs' 'summary Judgment']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Copyright Infringement in Sound Recordings / Notice of Motion by the Seventh and Eighth Respondents for Leave to File an Appearance and Defence Out of Time and to Prevent Delivery or Entry of Judgment Against Them

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the seventh and eighth respondents should be given leave to file an appearance and a defence out of time.' 'Whether the applicants should have leave to enter the orders made against the seventh and eighth respondents on 18 July 2003.' 'Whether the costs of the motion should be determined or reserved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the seventh and eighth respondents had given an adequate explanation for their prolonged failure to file a defence despite ample opportunity and repeated indications from the applicants' solicitors that the matter was proceeding to judgment.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; applicants granted leave to enter orders against the seventh and eighth respondents; costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['The motion brought by the seventh and eighth respondents by notice of motion filed on 18 July 2003 be dismissed.' 'The applicants have leave to enter the orders made against the seventh and eighth respondents on 18 July 2003.' 'The costs of the motion brought by the seventh and eighth respondents be reserved.']