Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 357

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 357

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment – motion by first and third respondents to vacate hearing dates – both parties defaulted in complying with timetable – matter could not adequately be prepared for hearing by fixed date – prejudice suffered by applicants could be remedied by costs order – hearing dates vacated

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 202

State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 followed Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 referred to NINE FILMS & TELEVISION PTY LTD (ACN 008 685 407) AND NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 066 040 024) v NINOX TELEVISION LIMITED (formerly known as NINOX FILMS LIMITED), TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND JOHN CHARLES McEWEN NSD 1820 OF 2004 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 5 APRIL 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1820 OF 2004

BETWEEN: NINE FILMS & TELEVISION PTY LTD

ACN 066 040 024

FIRST APPLICANT

NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

ACN 008 685 407

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: NINOX TELEVISION LIMITED

(formerly known as NINOX FILMS LIMITED)

FIRST RESPONDENT

TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CHARLES McEWEN

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MARCH 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The hearing dates (11-15 April 2005) are vacated. 2. The First and Third Respondents pay any costs of the Applicants thrown away as a consequence of this late application to vacate the hearing dates. 3. The Applicants have leave to tax and pursue recovery of these costs forthwith. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.