Copyright Agency Limited v University of Adelaide [2000] FCA 1894

Copyright Agency Limited v University of Adelaide [2000] FCA 1894

The Court did not finally determine the costs issue. Lindgren J considered the issue difficult because the proceeding had a cooperative test-case background, but the existing evidence did not adequately explain how CAL selected the 42 instances and suggested that CAL may not have taken care to avoid unnecessary cost. The appropriate course at that stage was to invite short written submissions on whether to order a proportion of costs, reserve costs, or receive further evidence and submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Copyright Infringement Proceeding Arising Out of Australian Copyright Tribunal Proceedings / Notices of Motion Concerning Dismissal, Amendment of Statement of Claim, and Costs; Direction for Further Submissions
Outcome
Costs issue not finally determined; parties directed to file and serve further submissions on the procedural course to be followed.
Legal Topics
['part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'fair Dealing Under S 40 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'course Packs for External Students' 'staff Copying' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'dismissal or Discontinuance Against Parties' 'test Case Procedure' 'costs Thrown Away']
['copyright' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'fair Dealing Under S 40 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'course Packs for External Students' 'staff Copying' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'dismissal or Discontinuance Against Parties' 'test Case Procedure' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Copyright Infringement Proceeding Arising Out of Australian Copyright Tribunal Proceedings / Notices of Motion Concerning Dismissal, Amendment of Statement of Claim, and Costs; Direction for Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether CAL should pay the Universities' costs of the proceeding to date, except the costs of the discontinued cross-claim, after CAL sought to proceed only against Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney and to rely on a reduced set of copying instances." 'Whether the proceeding should be treated as a cooperative test case in which the Universities should bear some or all of the costs of considering proposed copying instances.' 'Which procedural course should be followed before determining the costs issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court did not finally determine the costs issue. Lindgren J considered the issue difficult because the proceeding had a cooperative test-case background, but the existing evidence did not adequately explain how CAL selected the 42 instances and suggested that CAL may not have taken care to avoid unnecessary cost. The appropriate course at that stage was to invite short written submissions on whether to order a proportion of costs, reserve costs, or receive further evidence and submissions.

Court Disposition

Costs issue not finally determined; parties directed to file and serve further submissions on the procedural course to be followed.

Orders

  • ['The parties file and serve submissions by 31 January 2000 as to which one or more of the three courses identified in the Reasons for Judgment of Lindgren J dated 21 December 2000 should now be followed.']