EdSonic Pty Ltd v Cassidy (No 3) [2011] FCA 995

EdSonic Pty Ltd v Cassidy (No 3) [2011] FCA 995

Charges 1, 2, and 3 were each bad on their face for failure to specify conduct contravening the orders and for lack of evidence capable of establishing the alleged breaches. As such, there was no case to answer, and the charges were summarily dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: EdSonic Pty Ltd ACN 094 797 010; Cross Claimant: Barbara Molly Cassidy; Respondent: Barbara Molly Cassidy; First Cross Respondent: EdSonic Pty Ltd ACN 094 797 010; Second Cross Respondent: EdSonic Australia Pty Limited ACN 101 545 206; Third Cross Respondent: Robin Patrick Lick
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Motion for Contempt / Summary Dismissal of Charges After Applicant Closed Case
Outcome
Summary dismissal of charges 1, 2 and 3 in the amended statement of charge (contempt)
Legal Topics
Contempt for Failure to Comply With Orders, Copyright Infringement, Summary Dismissal
Contempt of Court Contempt for Failure to Comply With Orders Copyright Infringement Summary Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EdSonic Pty Ltd ACN 094 797 010

Applicant

Barbara Molly Cassidy

Cross Claimant

Barbara Molly Cassidy

Respondent

EdSonic Pty Ltd ACN 094 797 010

First Cross Respondent

EdSonic Australia Pty Limited ACN 101 545 206

Second Cross Respondent

Robin Patrick Lick

Third Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Contempt / Summary Dismissal of Charges After Applicant Closed Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether charges 1, 2 and 3 of contempt are proper on their face and supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether there is a case to answer for alleged breaches of orders relating to copyright materials

Ratio Decidendi

Charges 1, 2, and 3 were each bad on their face for failure to specify conduct contravening the orders and for lack of evidence capable of establishing the alleged breaches. As such, there was no case to answer, and the charges were summarily dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summary dismissal of charges 1, 2 and 3 in the amended statement of charge (contempt)

Orders

  • On a summary basis, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the amended statement of charge filed 14 April 2011 accompanying the notice of motion filed 23 February 2011 be dismissed.