FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Brown v Edwards alias Shania Twain [2001] FCA 1659 ROBERT GEOFFREY BROWN v EILLEEN EDWARDS ALIAS SHANIA TWAIN AND anor S 0140 of 2001 GRAY, DOWSETT AND STONE JJ 5 DECEMBER 2001 SYDNEY (heard in Adelaide) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 0140 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FOR A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Robert Geoffrey Brown APPELLANT AND: Eileen Edwards Alias Shania Twain FIRST RESPONDENT Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: Gray, Dowsett and Stone JJ DATE OF ORDER: 22 November 2001 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the appeal be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 0140 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Robert Geoffrey Brown APPELLANT AND: Eileen Edwards Alias Shania Twain FIRST RESPONDENT Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: Gray, Dowsett and Stone JJ DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2001 PLACE: sydney (heard in Adelaide) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT the court: Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a judge of this Court ordering that two statements of claim filed by the appellant be struck out and that the proceedings against both respondents be dismissed. The appellant has filed an appeal from that judgment, claiming that the primary judge "erred for failing to have the first respondent appear before the court to answer the [appellant's] application". On 22 November 2001 the Court dismissed the appeal and advised that it would provide reasons at a later date. These are the reasons. BACKGROUND 2 On 12 March 2001 the appellant filed a document in the style of a Form 5 application under the Federal Court Rules. Attached to that application were twelve pages of additional material, which referred in a very disjointed manner to various parts of the Copyright Act 1968(Cth)("Act") and the Federal Court Rules. In essence it appeared that the appellant was seeking equitable remuneration under s 135ZU of the Act, although the application did not disclose any basis for a claim under s 135ZU and an affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his application did nothing to support his claim. 3 In an ex parte hearing before the primary judge on 19 March 2001 it became somewhat apparent that the appellant was actually seeking a share of royalties from the performance of certain songs which he claimed to have co-authored with the first respondent. The appellant said that this entitlement arose under the terms of an assignment of his copyright to one or other of the respondents. The primary judge gave the appellant leave to amend his application by removing the attachments and specifying the relief claimed. 4 An amended application filed by the appellant on 23 March 2001, together with a new supporting affidavit, failed to show how the remedy sought by the appellant could have a basis in law. 5 The first directions hearing on 9 May 2001 was adjourned before all the issues had been disposed of. At the time of the adjournment of the hearing the solicitors for the second respondent did not have any instructions in respect of the first respondent. The second respondent, pursuant to orders of the primary judge at the directions hearing, filed a notice of appearance on the same day. 6 On 31 May 2001, and prior to the first directions hearing being resumed, the second respondent filed a notice of motion and supporting affidavit seeking to have the proceedings dismissed pursuant to O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules, or alternatively to have the appellant's application struck out pursuant to O 11 r 16. By that time it had become clear that the solicitors for the second respondent would not be instructed to act for the first respondent, that the first respondent lived in the United States of America, and that the first respondent had not been served. 7 On resumption of the first directions hearing on 12 June 2001 the primary judge suggested that the appellant "should file a statement of claim which set out in clear, simple terms the facts he relied on to found his claim." The primary judge also urged the appellant "to stick to the facts and not to cite section numbers from Acts." The directions hearing was again adjourned, together with the second respondent's notice of motion. 8 On 18 June 2001 the appellant filed a number of documents, amongst which were two documents entitled statement of claim. These statements of claim were subsequently struck out on the basis that they failed to disclose a cause of action. A notice of motion filed on 22 June 2001, appearing to be an application under O 8 of the Federal Court Rules to serve the first respondent out of the jurisdiction, was adjourned pending the hearing of the second respondent's notice of motion (see [6] above). The applicant was given leave to file a further statement of claim. 9 Subsequently the appellant filed two further documents entitled statement of claim. The first, filed on 13 July 2001, merely listed various sections of the Act and the Federal Court Rules and did not in any way plead a cause of action. The second, filed on 10 August 2001, was appropriately described by the primary judge as comprising "four pages of single spaced typing. It [the document] recites in a disjointed way principles of substantive law, of evidence law and of court procedures." The only exception to this description identified by the primary judge was a passage which claimed that the appellant was the copyright owner in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, that "an infringement was committed" by the second respondent, and that the appellant was owed a certain sum of money. On 16 August 2001, the primary judge ordered that these statements of claim be struck out and that the proceedings against both respondents be dismissed. 10 It was the primary judge's opinion that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity and latitude to put his alleged claim into a meaningful form. In the circumstances the second respondent was entitled to have the application against it dismissed. The primary judge also dismissed the claim against the first respondent "on the basis that it would be vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court to allow the present proceedings to continue." THE APPEAL 11 The only ground of appeal that can be derived from the appellant's notice of appeal, filed on 24 August 2001, is that the primary judge erred in not having the first respondent appear before the Court in the primary proceedings. The notice of appeal also contains various statements, none of which need to be repeated here, which could not constitute grounds for an appeal given that they are merely attempts by the appellant to restate his claim for relief. 12 The appellant did not argue that the primary judge made an error in striking out the statements of claim and dismissing the proceedings. The notice of appeal merely asserts that the primary judge should have required the first respondent to appear before the Court to answer the appellant's allegations. At the hearing the appellant was not able to add anything of substance to this. 13 The failings of the statements of claim dismissed by the primary judge are so fundamental that it is obvious that the matter could not proceed on those pleadings. Moreover transcripts of the various hearings before the primary judge show that his Honour was extraordinarily patient with the appellant and attempted many times to explain to him the problems with his pleadings and to indicate what was required. In our opinion his Honour's judgment is clearly correct and there is no basis on which an appeal against it could succeed. 14 For these reasons the Court made an order on 22 November 2001 dismissing the appeal. As the respondent did not seek costs the Court made no order as to costs. I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Dated: 5 December 2001 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: No appearance Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J Wilkinson Date of Hearing: 22 November 2001 Date of Order: 22 November 2001 Date of Judgment: 5 December 2001