Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Limited v University of Tasmania [2003] FCA 929

Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Limited v University of Tasmania [2003] FCA 929

The applicants had not made out any ground for an order requiring the University of Sydney to provide further information about dates of overwriting or steps taken. The University had expressly and repeatedly disclosed its routine updating and overwriting process before the relevant orders were made, the applicants did not seek an order restraining that routine process, and the routine overwriting in those circumstances did not tend to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application in Preliminary Discovery Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicants on 1 September 2003 Seeking Orders Requiring the Second Respondent to Provide Information About Deletion or Overwriting of Backup Tapes
Outcome
The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['routine Overwriting of Backup Tapes' 'integrity of Court Process' 'administration of Justice' 'compliance With Discovery Orders' 'electronic Documents']
['practice and Procedure' 'preliminary Discovery' 'contempt of Court'] ['routine Overwriting of Backup Tapes' 'integrity of Court Process' 'administration of Justice' 'compliance With Discovery Orders' 'electronic Documents']

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 Application in Preliminary Discovery Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicants on 1 September 2003 Seeking Orders Requiring the Second Respondent to Provide Information About Deletion or Overwriting of Backup Tapes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the University of Sydney should be ordered to provide dates on which information stored on backup tapes required to be produced under preliminary discovery orders was deleted or overwritten.' 'Whether routine overwriting of backup tapes, disclosed before the discovery orders were made and not restrained by any order, could justify further orders on the basis of possible contempt or interference with the administration of justice.' 'Whether the applicants had made out a basis for orders requiring information about when the University first became aware of overwriting and what steps it took to determine whether data had been deleted or overwritten.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had not made out any ground for an order requiring the University of Sydney to provide further information about dates of overwriting or steps taken. The University had expressly and repeatedly disclosed its routine updating and overwriting process before the relevant orders were made, the applicants did not seek an order restraining that routine process, and the routine overwriting in those circumstances did not tend to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed by the applicants on 1 September 2003 is dismissed with costs.']