Copyright Agency Limited v University of Adelaide (Advance Ruling) [2020] ACopyT 3

Copyright Agency Limited v University of Adelaide (Advance Ruling) [2020] ACopyT 3

It was procedurally fair to receive the three affidavits because they responded to the Respondents' evidence about the extent to which copyright material was provided to students and there was no harm in receiving them; however, procedural fairness required the Respondents to have an opportunity to put on evidence from the University of Sydney, UNSW and UTS contradicting or qualifying the deponents' student experiences. The fact that the deponents were the Applicant's lawyers did not justify excluding the affidavits. The Respondents' application for an advance ruling was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Advance Ruling / Advance Ruling Before Hearing on Whether Affidavits Should Be Received
Outcome
The Respondents' application for an advance ruling was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['advance Ruling' 'affidavit Evidence' 'reply Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'opportunity to Respond' 'lawyers as Witnesses']
['copyright' 'practice and Procedure' 'procedural Fairness'] ['advance Ruling' 'affidavit Evidence' 'reply Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'opportunity to Respond' 'lawyers as Witnesses']

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 for Advance Ruling / Advance Ruling Before Hearing on Whether Affidavits Should Be Received

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the affidavits of Ms Haddock, Mr Regattieri and Ms Causley-Todd were not in reply and should not be received.' 'Whether the affidavits should not be received because they would be of no assistance to the Tribunal.' 'Whether receipt of the affidavits would be prejudicial because their form meant they could not be properly answered.' 'Whether procedural fairness required the Respondents to be given an opportunity to respond if the affidavits were received.' "Whether the affidavits should not be permitted because the deponents were the Applicant's lawyers."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was procedurally fair to receive the three affidavits because they responded to the Respondents' evidence about the extent to which copyright material was provided to students and there was no harm in receiving them; however, procedural fairness required the Respondents to have an opportunity to put on evidence from the University of Sydney, UNSW and UTS contradicting or qualifying the deponents' student experiences. The fact that the deponents were the Applicant's lawyers did not justify excluding the affidavits. The Respondents' application for an advance ruling was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

The Respondents' application for an advance ruling was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents' application for an advance ruling be dismissed." "The parties confer and propose to the Tribunal an agreed order so as to facilitate the putting on of evidence by the University of Sydney, UNSW and UTS in response to Ms Haddock's, Ms Causley-Todd's and Mr Regattieri's affidavits within seven days...