PIPE Networks Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2011] FCA 1288

PIPE Networks Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2011] FCA 1288

Although there was a serious issue to be tried about whether Schedule 3 operated without being inhibited by Schedule 1, interlocutory relief was refused because the balance of convenience was against granting it in light of possible adverse consequences from an uncoordinated installation, and any loss to PIPE, IRESS and Macquarie was capable of calculation in monetary terms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Relief Concerning Access to Premises for Telecommunications Installation / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['telecommunications Installation Work' 'low Impact Facilities' 'carrier Access to Land and Facilities' 'schedule 1 and Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (cth)' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief']
['communications Law' 'telecommunications Law'] ['telecommunications Installation Work' 'low Impact Facilities' 'carrier Access to Land and Facilities' 'schedule 1 and Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (cth)' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief']

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

Interlocutory Application for Relief Concerning Access to Premises for Telecommunications Installation / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether PIPE was authorised under Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) to install optical fibre at 101 Collins Street without consent from Property Comm under Schedule 1.' 'Whether there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether Schedule 3 operates without being inhibited by Schedule 1.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief restraining the respondents from refusing access.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interlocutory relief were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a serious issue to be tried about whether Schedule 3 operated without being inhibited by Schedule 1, interlocutory relief was refused because the balance of convenience was against granting it in light of possible adverse consequences from an uncoordinated installation, and any loss to PIPE, IRESS and Macquarie was capable of calculation in monetary terms.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed with costs.' 'The proceeding is adjourned to a scheduling conference before Justice Gordon on 15 December 2011 at 9:30 am.']