Australian Journalists Association v Jeffress, N

[1989] FCA 221

NOT FDR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NO. NG1319 of 1988
)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:  AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS
ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Applicant

AND :  NEVILLE JEFFRESS & ANOR.

Respondent

21 March 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

Thls is a proceeding for breach of copyright. The first applicant is the Australian Journalists Association and the second applicant a company called "Copyright Agency Limited". The proceeding concerns literary works known as the De Garris Works and the MOOre Works. The thlrd applicant, Brian Kelvin De Garris, and the fourth applicant, Matthew More, are alleged in the pleadings to be the authors and owners of the

.

copyright in the De Garrls works and the Moore Works
respectively. The relief claimed by the applicants is both

declaratory and inlunctive.	,:-.-7-.-
1 6 MAY 198'1

This morning the Court has heard a motion by the respondent for orders that the first two applicants cease to be parties to the proceeding, pursuant to Order 6, rule 9 of this Court's Rules.

The statement of claim asserts, so far as material, that the first and second applicants are agents of the third and fourth applicants for the purpose of granting licences for the reproduction and publication of both works. Particulars have been given of those assertions and they are to the effect that the first two applicants are the licensees of the third and fourth applicants in relation to the reproduction of the works of the third and fourth applicants by an organisation "Media Monitors".

Other material before me suggests that the applicants wish to assert that the first two applicants are not only agents of the third and fourth applicants but are also non-exclusive licensees. There is, I think, a real question

parties to the proceeding. It is not a question that is free	as to whether or not the first two applicants are necessary
from difficulty and it is a question which in my vlew should not be determined at this stage. If it arises again it is a matter appropriately dealt with at the trial.
I cannot discern any real prejudice that is likely to be sustained by the respondent if the first two applicants are retained as parties, though this of course may change during the course of the case. I am not satisfied that the first two applicants are devoid of interest in the proceeding sufficient to cause them to be dismissed as applicants at this stage. On the other hand I thlnk that in all the circumstances the motion has been properly brought. I say that with reference to costs.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the notice of motion filed on 15 March 1989 be stood over to the trial with liberty to any party to restore it on seven days notice. The costs of the motion will be costs in the proceeding.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Associate

Date: 21 March 1989