Audio-Visual Copyright Society Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2005] ACopyT 1

Audio-Visual Copyright Society Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2005] ACopyT 1

The Tribunal rejected the objected parts of Mr Delany's statement because they were either unsupported by evidence of the Board's deliberations or irrelevant to the issues in the proceedings. The Tribunal exercised its discretion, consistent with statutory provisions and guiding principles from evidence law, to exclude evidence where its admission would not assist in resolving the matters in dispute.

Parties
Applicant: Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited; First Respondent: Foxtel Management Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Optus Vision Media Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Austar Entertainment Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Determination of Equitable Remuneration Under Statutory Licence / Ruling on Objections to Evidence
Outcome
Objection to evidence sustained in part
Legal Topics
Copyright, Statutory Licences, Rules of Evidence, Administrative Tribunals
Intellectual Property Administrative Law Copyright Statutory Licences Rules of Evidence Administrative Tribunals

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited

Applicant

Foxtel Management Pty Limited

First Respondent

Optus Vision Media Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Austar Entertainment Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Determination of Equitable Remuneration Under Statutory Licence / Ruling on Objections to Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should admit certain evidence objected to by the applicant, given the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence
  2. 2 Applicability of principles from Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and common law to exercise of Tribunal's discretion on evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the objected parts of Mr Delany's statement because they were either unsupported by evidence of the Board's deliberations or irrelevant to the issues in the proceedings. The Tribunal exercised its discretion, consistent with statutory provisions and guiding principles from evidence law, to exclude evidence where its admission would not assist in resolving the matters in dispute.

Court Disposition

Objection to evidence sustained in part

Orders

  • The objected portions ('both' and 'and the Board' and 'that we' in paragraph 3, and the whole of paragraph 4) of Mr Delany's written statement are rejected.
  • The remainder of the statement is admitted as Confidential Exhibit R29.