Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Reasons Revision Application) [2020] FCA 882

Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Reasons Revision Application) [2020] FCA 882

The application to revise the reasons was refused because the Court had not proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law; the licence-exclusion argument now advanced by the Applicants had not been put at trial in answer to the Respondents' APRA and AMCOS licence submissions. Revising the reasons would require the Court to formulate an unadvanced argument for the Applicants and determine it without hearing from the Respondents. Leave to re-open was also refused because the issue was live at trial, the Applicants had an opportunity to respond and did not do so, and it would be unfair and contrary to finality to allow the matter to be agitated again.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Revise Reasons for Judgment and Alternatively to Re Open the Case / After Liability Judgment and Before Entry of Orders
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['revision of Reasons Before Orders Entered' 're Opening Application' 'apra and AMCOS Licences' 'authorisation of Copyright Infringement' 'procedural Fairness' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'copyright and Industrial Designs'] ['revision of Reasons Before Orders Entered' 're Opening Application' 'apra and AMCOS Licences' 'authorisation of Copyright Infringement' 'procedural Fairness' 'finality of Litigation' '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

Application to Revise Reasons for Judgment and Alternatively to Re Open the Case / After Liability Judgment and Before Entry of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should revise its reasons before orders were entered to consider the Applicants' argument that exclusions in the APRA and AMCOS licences answered the Respondents' position on primary infringement by music service providers and YouTube." "Whether the Court should grant leave to re-open the Applicants' case to advance that argument if revision of the reasons was refused." "Whether the Applicants should pay the Respondents' costs of the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to revise the reasons was refused because the Court had not proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law; the licence-exclusion argument now advanced by the Applicants had not been put at trial in answer to the Respondents' APRA and AMCOS licence submissions. Revising the reasons would require the Court to formulate an unadvanced argument for the Applicants and determine it without hearing from the Respondents. Leave to re-open was also refused because the issue was live at trial, the Applicants had an opportunity to respond and did not do so, and it would be unfair and contrary to finality to allow the matter to be agitated again.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for the Court to revise its reasons and to re-open the case be refused.' "The Applicants pay the Respondents' costs of the application unless one or more of them inform my chambers of their desire to seek some other costs order within seven days of the date of these orders in which case this order...