High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ
Matter No S168/2012
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS APPLICANTS
AND
GLOBAL GAMING SUPPLIES PTY LTD & ORS RESPONDENTS
Matter No S169/2012
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS APPLICANTS
AND
RIAD ALLAM & ORS RESPONDENTS
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam [2013] HCA 21 Date of Order: 2 May 2013 Date of Publication of Reasons: 10 May 2013 S168/2012 & S169/2012
ORDER
In each matter, special leave refused with costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
A J L Bannon SC with J M Hennessy SC for the applicants in both matters (instructed by Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers)
M L D Einfeld QC with A C Harding for the respondents in S168/2012 and the second to fifth respondents in S169/2012 (instructed by Paul Bard Lawyers)
M Green for the first and sixth respondents in S169/2012 (instructed by Bruce & Stewart Lawyers)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam
Evidence – Tendency rule – Section 97(1) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Failure to comply with tendency rule where evidence not characterised as tendency evidence at first instance – Applicants alleged that respondents refurbished and sold machines that incorporated pirated copies of material in which applicants held copyright, thereby infringing ss 36 and 38 of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – Email communications of respondents relied upon by primary judge to prove that respondents had knowledge of infringing conduct – Full Court of Federal Court held that email communications relied upon by primary judge to establish tendency to engage in infringing conduct without compliance with s 97(1) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether open to Full Court to conclude that email communications were relied upon by primary judge to establish tendency.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate