Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd (No 1) [2003] ACopyT 2

Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd (No 1) [2003] ACopyT 2

The requested direction was refused because the respondents' principal objection, relevance to equitable remuneration, was integral to the substantive determination and should be decided at the final hearing in light of all relevant evidence. It was preferable, if not necessary, for the full Tribunal that would hear the substantive application to determine admissibility questions. Refusing an advance ruling also avoided opening the way to successive survey proposals and further interlocutory applications; Screenrights could proceed with a survey at its own risk after receiving the objections.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Copyright Tribunal Application to Determine Equitable Remuneration for Retransmissions of Free to Air Broadcasts, With an Interlocutory Directions Application Concerning Proposed Survey Evidence / Directions Hearing Before Final Hearing; Respondents Sought a Direction That the Applicant Not Be Permitted to Tender Proposed Survey Evidence
Outcome
The respondents' application for a direction preventing the applicant from tendering the proposed survey evidence at the final hearing was refused.
Legal Topics
['copyright Tribunal' 'survey Evidence' 'retransmission of Free to Air Broadcasts' 'equitable Remuneration' 'directions Before Final Hearing' 'admissibility and Relevance']
['copyright' 'evidence' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['copyright Tribunal' 'survey Evidence' 'retransmission of Free to Air Broadcasts' 'equitable Remuneration' 'directions Before Final Hearing' 'admissibility and Relevance']

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

Copyright Tribunal Application to Determine Equitable Remuneration for Retransmissions of Free to Air Broadcasts, With an Interlocutory Directions Application Concerning Proposed Survey Evidence / Directions Hearing Before Final Hearing; Respondents Sought a Direction That the Applicant Not Be Permitted to Tender Proposed Survey Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the President of the Copyright Tribunal had power before the final hearing to direct that proposed survey evidence not be tendered on the final hearing' 'Whether, if such power existed, the President should exercise discretion to give the direction sought by the respondents' 'Whether objections to the relevance and methodology of the proposed survey evidence should be determined before or at the final hearing']

Ratio Decidendi

The requested direction was refused because the respondents' principal objection, relevance to equitable remuneration, was integral to the substantive determination and should be decided at the final hearing in light of all relevant evidence. It was preferable, if not necessary, for the full Tribunal that would hear the substantive application to determine admissibility questions. Refusing an advance ruling also avoided opening the way to successive survey proposals and further interlocutory applications; Screenrights could proceed with a survey at its own risk after receiving the objections.

Court Disposition

The respondents' application for a direction preventing the applicant from tendering the proposed survey evidence at the final hearing was refused.

Orders

  • ['The direction sought by the respondents be refused.']