NETWORK TEN LTD v FULWOOD [1995] NSWCA 311

NETWORK TEN LTD v FULWOOD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY JA 4 December 1995

[1995] NSWCA 311

Mahoney JA. This is an application for an injunction to prevent from going to air, at least in the proposed form, a programme proposed to be aired by The Seven Network Ltd, featuring the first defendant, Miss Anne Fulwood, at 10.30 this evening.

It is now after 7 o'clock in the evening. It is important that the parties know their rights, as far as this application is concerned, without delay. I, therefore, propose to indicate the order which I propose to make. I shall subsequently publish my reasons. I shall do that because the matter may be of some importance to the parties, because of the issues involved and because of what, prima facie, is the conduct of the parties in relation to the matters in question.

The application concerns a programme which Seven (as I shall describe it) proposes to put to air, with or without the assistance of Miss Fulwood, this evening. Ten (as I shall describe it) claims that for it to do so will constitute a breach by her, with the assistance of Seven, of a contract which Miss Fulwood has with Ten.

I shall narrate the facts according to the evidence as it is before me. It is proper to record that the evidence comes before me in a quite unusual way, which I haveattempted to detail in the transcript and which I need not now repeat. It is possible — it may be probable — that if the matter is finally determined by a hearing, the evidence will be different and what I say will, to that extent, be inaccurate. However, I must deal with the present application upon the basis of the evidence as it is before me.

In May 1994 Ten made an agreement with Miss Fulwood under which she would be employed by it as a news presenter performing that or such other duties as she might be directed to perform from time to time by the chief executive officer of Ten or his nominee. Reference is made to her duties in a letter of 12 May 1994, which she accepted as setting forth the terms or the basis of her contract. It is proper to record that her remuneration for the work which she was to do in that regard was, on any view, substantial. The contract was to continue until 31 December 1995 and the contract provided for Ten to have 'an option for a further extension of this agreement for a period of one year on terms to be mutually agreed upon'.