Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Video Retailers Association Limited [2005] FCA 45

Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Video Retailers Association Limited [2005] FCA 45

Because difficult issues remained as to the proper scope of final relief after the parties' post-judgment conduct and submissions, and because broad corrective advertising orders against Foxtel appeared disproportionate while AVRA's proposed limited relief might be inadequate, the Court did not determine final relief and instead stood the matter over for further mention and updated submissions and draft orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Directions for Determination of Final Relief Following Findings on Claims and Cross Claims / Further Mention and Directions After Reasons for Judgment and Interim Orders; Final Relief, Damages and Costs Not Yet Determined
Outcome
Proceedings stood over for further mention; final relief not determined.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'corrective Advertising' 'injunctions' 'final Relief' 'damages' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'corrective Advertising' 'injunctions' 'final Relief' 'damages' '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

Practice and Procedure; Directions for Determination of Final Relief Following Findings on Claims and Cross Claims / Further Mention and Directions After Reasons for Judgment and Interim Orders; Final Relief, Damages and Costs Not Yet Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What final orders should be made to give effect to the reasons for judgment delivered on 8 December 2004.' 'Whether corrective advertising orders sought by Foxtel against AVRA should be made in their proposed form or confined to more limited relief.' 'Whether corrective advertising orders sought by AVRA against Foxtel would be disproportionate in the circumstances.' 'Whether further procedural directions were required concerning damages, costs and updated submissions on final relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because difficult issues remained as to the proper scope of final relief after the parties' post-judgment conduct and submissions, and because broad corrective advertising orders against Foxtel appeared disproportionate while AVRA's proposed limited relief might be inadequate, the Court did not determine final relief and instead stood the matter over for further mention and updated submissions and draft orders.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stood over for further mention; final relief not determined.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be stood over for further mention on Wednesday, 9 February 2005, at 9.30am.']