Big Fights Inc v Filmworld Pty Ltd Australian Olympic Committee v The Big Fights Inc and Ors

[1997] FCA 49

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )        No NG 715 of 1996

GENERAL DIVISION                 )        

BETWEEN:

BIG FIGHTS INCORPORATED
  Applicant

AND:

FILMWORLD PTY LIMITED
  Respondent

No NG 49 of 1997
         BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
  Applicant

AND:

THE BIG FIGHTS INC
                   First Respondent

PETER WHITCHURCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 213 258)
                  Second Respondent

BECK HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 166 594)
                   Third Respondent

FILM WORLD PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 565 222)
                  Fourth Respondent

LYNETTE JUNE BENSON
                   Fifth Respondent

DIANE YVONNE TALBOT
                   Sixth Respondent

CORAM:Lindgren J

PLACE:Sydney

DATE:4 February 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 2)
  (ex tempore)

On the motions in both proceedings I gave reasons yesterday
but reserved liberty to any party to make further submissions as to the identity of the appropriate custodian of the Films.  No party has done so.  Ms Baird of counsel for AOC has informed me that the parties have now agreed that Comcopy is the appropriate entity to be custodian.  I make orders in terms of paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5 of short minutes of orders, initialled by me, dated today and placed with the papers.

In relation to the costs of AOC's motion in proceeding NG 49 of 1997, I remain of the view that those costs should be the costs of the parties to that motion in proceeding NG 49 of 1997 generally.  The motion raised a question of administration and of the appropriateness of an interim repository of the Films on which AOC and TBF assisted by leading evidence of facilities available.  While it is true that TBF contended in favour of a particular entity which has not found favour, while AOC contended in favour of two entities, one of which has found favour, I do not think that this is an appropriate basis on which to order TBF to pay  AOC's cost of AOC's motion.  Accordingly, the costs order will be as I have indicated, that is to say, that the costs of AOC's motion will be the costs of the respective parties to that motion of the proceeding generally.

In relation to the associated matter, NG 715 of 1996, as I foreshadowed yesterday, I make the following orders:

1. An order that the motion brought by the applicant by notice of motion filed 19 December 1996 be dismissed.

1. An order that the cost of the parties to that motion be part of their respective costs of proceeding NG 715 of 1996 generally.

1. An order that the proceeding stand over to 9 April 1997 at 9.30 am with liberty to the parties to apply on three days' notice.

I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:11 February 1997

Heard:       3 February 1997

Place:       Sydney

Decided:     3, 4 February 1997

Appearances:  Ms J Baird of counsel instructed by Clayton Utz, solicitors, appeared for the applicant in proceeding NG 49 of 1997 (AOC).

Mr R Horsley of counsel instructed by Dickson Fisher Macansh appeared for the applicant in proceeding NG 715 of 1996 and the first respondent in proceeding NG 49 of 1997 (The Big Fights Inc).

Mr P Banki, solicitor, of Banki Palombi Haddock & Fiora, appeared for the respondent in proceeding NG 715 of 1996 and the 4th respondent in proceeding NG 49 of 1997 (Filmworld Pty Ltd).