TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited v Network Ten Limited [2001] FCA 1282

TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited v Network Ten Limited [2001] FCA 1282

Although Ten was the entirely successful party on the ultimate copyright claims, it failed on distinct and severable issues, including some fair dealing defences and the implied licence defence. Those circumstances justified a fractional reduction in Ten's costs entitlement, but not an order requiring Ten to pay Nine's costs of those issues because that would create excessive complexity for taxation. Justice was served by awarding Ten 80% of its costs of the totality of the proceedings, except where any special order had already been made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Copyright Infringement Proceedings / First Instance Determination of Costs After Judgments on Liability
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay 80% of the Respondent's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['discretion to Award Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'television Broadcast Copyright' 'fair Dealing' 'implied Licence']
['costs' 'copyright'] ['discretion to Award Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'television Broadcast Copyright' 'fair Dealing' 'implied Licence']

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

Costs Application in Copyright Infringement Proceedings / First Instance Determination of Costs After Judgments on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should wholly follow the event in favour of the successful respondent.' "Whether the respondent's failure on certain alternative defences justified apportioning its entitlement to costs." "Whether any apportionment should be confined to reducing the successful party's costs rather than requiring issue-by-issue costs orders in favour of the applicants."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Ten was the entirely successful party on the ultimate copyright claims, it failed on distinct and severable issues, including some fair dealing defences and the implied licence defence. Those circumstances justified a fractional reduction in Ten's costs entitlement, but not an order requiring Ten to pay Nine's costs of those issues because that would create excessive complexity for taxation. Justice was served by awarding Ten 80% of its costs of the totality of the proceedings, except where any special order had already been made.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay 80% of the Respondent's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants pay eighty per centum (80%) of the Respondent's costs of the proceedings."]