Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority, Foxtel Cable Television [1997] FCA 104

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. 100 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING AUTHORITY First Respondent FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION Second Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. DATE ORDER MADE: 25 FEBRUARY 1997 PLACE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY

MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT the applicant bring in short minutes of order on a date to be fixed to give effect to the reasons for judgment. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

CATCHWORDS JUDICIAL REVIEW - media law - broadcasting services - interpretation -anti-siphoning provisions - conditions imposed upon licensees.

Broadcasting Services Act: s. 115, Schedule 2 condition 10(1)(e). NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING AUTHORITY, FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION NG 100 of 1997

LOCKHART J. 25 FEBRUARY 1997 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. 100 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING AUTHORITY First Respondent FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION Second Respondent

25 FEBRUARY 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. Introduction, facts and statutory provisions This case raises questions of construction and application of what are called the 'anti-siphoning' provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), in particular s. 115 and condition 10(1)(e) of the conditions applicable to subscription television broadcasting licences (set out in Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Act). Section 115 relevantly provides: