Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited v Copyright Tribunal of Australia [2019] FCAFC 95

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited v Copyright Tribunal of Australia [2019] FCAFC 95

The Tribunal erred by including in the licence scheme a range of rights (non-PPCA rights) not licensed to PPCA by its members, as the Tribunal's power under s 154(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is limited to classes of cases the licensor or its members are willing to license; other challenges to the Tribunal's decision were rejected.

Parties
First Applicant: Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited; Second Applicant: Sony Music Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd; Third Applicant: Universal Music Australia Pty Limited; Fourth Applicant: Warner Music Australia Pty Limited; First Respondent: Copyright Tribunal of Australia; Second Respondent: Foxtel Management Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Full Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Part of Tribunal's decision set aside; matter referred back to Tribunal for further consideration regarding non-PPCA rights.
Legal Topics
Copyright Collecting Societies, Licence Schemes, Judicial Review, Tribunal Powers, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Copyright Administrative Law Intellectual Property Copyright Collecting Societies Licence Schemes Judicial Review Tribunal Powers Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited

First Applicant

Sony Music Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Universal Music Australia Pty Limited

Third Applicant

Warner Music Australia Pty Limited

Fourth Applicant

Copyright Tribunal of Australia

First Respondent

Foxtel Management Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Full Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Tribunal have jurisdiction to vary the licence scheme to include rights not licensed to the applicant?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal fail to take into account relevant considerations or provide procedural fairness?
  3. 3 Did the Tribunal err in its approach to comparable transactions and judicial estimation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by including in the licence scheme a range of rights (non-PPCA rights) not licensed to PPCA by its members, as the Tribunal's power under s 154(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is limited to classes of cases the licensor or its members are willing to license; other challenges to the Tribunal's decision were rejected.

Court Disposition

Part of Tribunal's decision set aside; matter referred back to Tribunal for further consideration regarding non-PPCA rights.

Orders

  • That part of the decision of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia made on 5 January 2018 that varied the licence scheme by the inclusion of non-PPCA rights be set aside.
  • The matter be referred to the Copyright Tribunal of Australia for further consideration in order to remove the non-PPCA rights from the licence, and any consequential matters, in accordance with the Court's reasons.