Reference by APRA AMCOS (Summonses) [2022] ACopyT 4

Reference by APRA AMCOS (Summonses) [2022] ACopyT 4

Most relevance, burden and vagueness objections to the proposed summonses were rejected because, at this stage of the s 154 reference, the requested documents could have a sufficient connection to the Tribunal's determination of a reasonable licensing scheme and the respondents had not established undue burden. However, summonses must seek specified documents, which required modification in some instances, and Sabre-type obligations could be made under the Tribunal's incidental procedural power but not as part of the summonses themselves.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Reference Under S 154 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) Concerning a Licensing Scheme Proposed by APRA AMCOS / Determination on the Papers of Disputed Terms of Proposed Summonses Under S 167(3)
Outcome
APRA AMCOS was directed to prepare appropriate orders and summonses within 7 days giving effect to the reasons; the disputed summonses were largely permitted subject to specified amendments, deletion of inappropriate notes, and Sabre orders being made separately rather than included in summonses.
Legal Topics
['copyright Tribunal Reference' 'licensing Scheme' 'summons to Produce Documents' 'relevance' 'specified Documents' 'undue Burden' 'sabre Orders' 'procedural Fairness']
['copyright' 'practice and Procedure'] ['copyright Tribunal Reference' 'licensing Scheme' 'summons to Produce Documents' 'relevance' 'specified Documents' 'undue Burden' 'sabre Orders' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Reference Under S 154 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) Concerning a Licensing Scheme Proposed by APRA AMCOS / Determination on the Papers of Disputed Terms of Proposed Summonses Under S 167(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the disputed summons paragraphs sought documents with a sufficient proximate connection to the Tribunal's determination of the reference under s 154(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)." 'Whether summonses under s 167(3) must identify specified documents and whether wording such as documents recording or evidencing matters satisfied that requirement.' 'Whether objections based on burden, vagueness, confidentiality, or alleged non-existence of documents justified refusing or modifying the summonses.' 'Whether the Tribunal had power to make Sabre-type orders requiring respondents to take steps to obtain documents from related entities, and whether such orders could be included in the summonses.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most relevance, burden and vagueness objections to the proposed summonses were rejected because, at this stage of the s 154 reference, the requested documents could have a sufficient connection to the Tribunal's determination of a reasonable licensing scheme and the respondents had not established undue burden. However, summonses must seek specified documents, which required modification in some instances, and Sabre-type obligations could be made under the Tribunal's incidental procedural power but not as part of the summonses themselves.

Court Disposition

APRA AMCOS was directed to prepare appropriate orders and summonses within 7 days giving effect to the reasons; the disputed summonses were largely permitted subject to specified amendments, deletion of inappropriate notes, and Sabre orders being made separately rather than included in summonses.

Orders

  • ['APRA AMCOS prepare appropriate orders and summonses in accordance with these reasons within 7 days and forward them to the Associate to Perram J.']