PIPE Networks Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2013] FCA 444

PIPE Networks Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2013] FCA 444

Clause 6(1)(b) of Schedule 3 authorised PIPE to carry out installation of the low-impact in-building subscriber connection equipment for purposes connected with the supply of a carriage service, and that authority did not depend on the building, MDF room or communications riser being land under clause 6(2). PIPE was not required to give Schedule 3 notice to Macquarie because clause 17 dealt with entry on land and, in any event, Macquarie had invited the work and waived any notice right. Although the MDF room, communications riser and building were facilities for clause 17(5) of Schedule 1 and PropertyComm may operate them as a first carrier, clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 is only engaged upon...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Seeking Declarations and Injunctive Relief Concerning Authority to Install Telecommunications Facilities, With a Cross Claim for Declarations / Reasons for Judgment After Final Hearing; Parties Directed to File Proposed Orders
Outcome
The Court gave reasons indicating PIPE was authorised by Schedule 3 to install the Secondary IRESS Cable without entering into a Schedule 1 agreement with PropertyComm, and directed the parties to propose orders to give effect to the reasons.
Legal Topics
['telecommunications Act 1997 (cth) Schedule 1' 'telecommunications Act 1997 (cth) Schedule 3' 'low Impact Telecommunications Facilities' 'land Access and Activity Notices' 'in Building Subscriber Connection Equipment' 'carrier Access to Multi Storey Office Buildings' 'interaction Between Statutory Access Regimes']
['communications Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'telecommunications Access Regulation'] ['telecommunications Act 1997 (cth) Schedule 1' 'telecommunications Act 1997 (cth) Schedule 3' 'low Impact Telecommunications Facilities' 'land Access and Activity Notices' 'in Building Subscriber Connection Equipment' 'carrier Access to Multi Storey Office Buildings' 'interaction Between Statutory Access Regimes']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Seeking Declarations and Injunctive Relief Concerning Authority to Install Telecommunications Facilities, With a Cross Claim for Declarations / Reasons for Judgment After Final Hearing; Parties Directed to File Proposed Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the authority conferred on a carrier by Schedule 3 to enter land applies to a carrier wishing to have access to a multi-storey office building.' 'Whether PIPE complied with all notification requirements prescribed by Schedule 3.' 'Whether the communications riser and the MDF room in the building are facilities within the meaning of Part 3 of Schedule 1.' 'Whether any right to install facilities under Schedule 3 is subject to the requirements of Part 3 of Schedule 1.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6(1)(b) of Schedule 3 authorised PIPE to carry out installation of the low-impact in-building subscriber connection equipment for purposes connected with the supply of a carriage service, and that authority did not depend on the building, MDF room or communications riser being land under clause 6(2). PIPE was not required to give Schedule 3 notice to Macquarie because clause 17 dealt with entry on land and, in any event, Macquarie had invited the work and waived any notice right. Although the MDF room, communications riser and building were facilities for clause 17(5) of Schedule 1 and PropertyComm may operate them as a first carrier, clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 is only engaged upon...

Court Disposition

The Court gave reasons indicating PIPE was authorised by Schedule 3 to install the Secondary IRESS Cable without entering into a Schedule 1 agreement with PropertyComm, and directed the parties to propose orders to give effect to the reasons.

Orders

  • ['The parties confer and, if agreement is reached, file a minute of proposed orders to give effect to the following reasons on or before 24 May 2013.' 'If the parties are unable to agree each party file and serve minutes of orders which it proposes should be made on or before 24 May 2013, accompanied, if need be,...