Mid Coast Radio Pty ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal & Anor [1983] FCA 370

Zo

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION No. G403 of 1983

BETWEEN : MID-COAST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First respondent

ie

Second respondent

ORDER

Judge making orders: Beaumont, J. Date orders made: 15 December, 1983.

Where made: Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. I order that, upon conclusion of the addresses by the parties before the consolidated inquiry described in the applic- ation filed herein on 14 December, 1983, all further proceedings in the said inquiry be stayed until further order of the Court. 2. I direct that:

(a) the applicant file and serve a statement of its claim

on or before 23 December, 1983; (b) the respondents file and serve any defence on or before

5 January, 1984;

COMMERCIAL RADIO COFFS HARBOUR LIMITED

({c)

(d)

(e)

3.

the applicant file any reply on or before 12 January,

1984;

the parties file and serve on or before 19 January, 1984 any affidavit to be relied on by any of them; the parties exchange on or before 26 January, 1984 copies of any documents to be tendered by any of them in addition to any documents annexed or exhibited to any affidavit filed.

I order that costs of this motion be costs in the

application for review.

I reserve liberty to any party to apply on two days'

I fix the final hearing of the application for review

to commence on 13 February, 1984.

6.

I fix 9.30 a.m. on 8 February, 1984 for mention of the

matter and for the return of any subpoenae.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY

No. G403 of 1983

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: MID-COAST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First respondent

a

AND: COMMERCIAL RADIO COFFS HARBOUR LIMITED Second respondent CORAM: BEAUMONT, J. DATED: 15 December, 1983.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In these proceedings, which were instituted yesterday, application 1s made for a stay of the hearing now proceeding (but virtually concluded) before the respondent Tribunal. Although the first respondent offers no active opposition to that course, the second respondent opposes a stay in the terms sought but provided an early hearing date is fixed, the second respondent does not object to an order being made which, whilst not staying the hearing before the Tribunal, stays the making of any decision by the Tribunal on the applications before it,