Bouvet v Minister for the Arts (No 2)

[2001] FCA 440

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bouvet v Minister for the Arts (No 2) [2001] FCA 440

ROBERT J BOUVET v THE MINISTER FOR THE ARTS (No 2)
V 104 of 2001

GOLDBERG J
18 APRIL 2001
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 104 of 2001

BETWEEN:	ROBERT J BOUVET Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR THE ARTS Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent be removed as a party in the proceeding.

2.        The applicant’s notice of motion filed 6 April 2001 is otherwise dismissed.

3.        The applicant’s notice of motion filed 20 March 2001 is dismissed.

4.        The respondent’s notice of motion filed 2 April 2001 is dismissed.

5.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of, and incidental to, being a party in the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 104 of 2001

BETWEEN:	ROBERT J BOUVET Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR THE ARTS Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	18 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, who appears in person, claims to be the owner of the copyright in the original story and in the original screenplay for the film entitled Crocodile Dundee which was released for public exhibition some years ago.  He commenced an application in this Court on 8 February 2001 against the Minister for the Arts for the State of Queensland (“the Minister”) in which he claimed interlocutory relief in relation to the release of the film, Crocodile Dundee in LA.  The only party nominated as a respondent in the proceeding was the Minister.  On 8 February 2001 the applicant also filed a notice of motion seeking interlocutory relief.

2. The application for interlocutory relief against the Minister came on for hearing before me on 5 March 2001 and on that day I dismissed the application for interlocutory relief and the claim made in the notice of motion:  Bouvet v Minister for the Arts [2001] FCA 195. During the course of the hearing of that application, it became apparent that the statement of claim which had been filed by the applicant was not in a form which disclosed a cause of action against the Minister. I gave the applicant leave to file an amended statement of claim which he did on 20 March 2001. In that amended statement of claim, the nominated respondent was again the Minister but in the body of the amended statement of claim there was reference to the fact that the Pacific Film and Television Commission (“the Commission”) and Bangalow Productions (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Bangalow”) were to be joined as respondents in the proceeding.

3. On 20 March 2001, the applicant filed a notice of motion to join Bangalow as the third respondent in the proceeding in addition to what he nominated or identified as the original two joint respondents, the Minister and the Commission.  On 2 April 2001, the Minister filed a motion to strike out the amended statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Minister.  On 6 April 2001, the applicant filed a further notice of motion seeking to remove the Minister as a respondent in the proceeding and to join Bangalow and the Commission as respondents. 

4. The Minister does not oppose his removal as a respondent in the proceeding but seeks his costs of and incidental to his nomination as a respondent in the proceeding.  I propose to grant that relief.  No cause of action has been disclosed in any of the material against the Minister and accordingly he should have his costs of the proceeding.

5. I turn to the application to join the Commission as a respondent in the proceeding.  I am not disposed to grant such an order.  There is no material before the Court which raises any suggestion that the applicant has a cause of action of any kind against the Commission.  The Commission receives funding from the State of Queensland, but the Commission itself has no entitlement or right to exhibit, distribute or otherwise exploit the film, Crocodile Dundee in LA, and it is not exhibiting or distributing that film itself.  Indeed the applicant does not claim substantive relief against the Commission.  Rather his claim appears to be that because of his claimed ownership of the copyright in the original character, Crocodile Dundee, he is entitled to be paid royalties in respect of the exploitation of that character in three films which have been released for public exhibition. 

6. It is not suggested that there is any entitlement to be paid those royalties by the Commission.  If at the end of the day any claim for breach of copyright were to be made out, no relief would be sought against the Commission.  I can see no basis for the joinder of the Commission as a respondent in the proceeding and I dismiss the applicant’s motions of 20 March 2001 and 6 April 2001 insofar as they seek to join the Commission as a respondent in the proceeding.

7. I turn to Bangalow.  The only material before me which bears upon that company is found in the affidavit of Robin Laurence James, the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission.  He says that Bangalow has made application to the Commission for production incentives in respect of its intention to produce in Queensland portions of Crocodile Dundee in LA.  According to his affidavit, which was sworn on 2 March 2001, at that stage Bangalow had not accessed any such rebates.  Mr James said that the Commission did provide assistance to Bangalow by way of matching its script to locations in order to encourage that company to shoot external bush scenes for the film Crocodile Dundee in LA in Queensland.

8. The applicant has candidly acknowledged that he has no other information about Bangalow and his only source of knowledge of that company is what Mr James has said.  When I turn to the amended statement of claim it does not take the matter any further so far as that company is concerned.  Rather, the relief claimed is that royalties, claimed to be owing to the applicant which are held in trust by a trust company, be released to the applicant and that royalties which he alleges are automatically owing to him from the third film, Crocodile Dundee in LA, be released to him before the film is released for public exhibition.

9. I am not satisfied on the material before me that there is any basis at the present time on which it is appropriate that Bangalow be joined as a respondent in the proceeding.  The applicant submitted to me that he could only take the matter step by step in trying to determine who was the party against whom he had his cause of action.  On the material before me, I do not consider it appropriate to join Bangalow as a party as no cause of action appears to be disclosed against it.  The applicant submitted in substance that the same persons involved with Bangalow had been involved with other companies concerned with earlier productions of films involving Crocodile Dundee.  If this matter is to proceed any further, it must proceed on the basis of material coming before the Court that shows a basis for a cause of action against any party proposed to be joined. 

10. For these reasons, I will dismiss the applicant’s motions filed 20 March 2001 and 6 April 2001 insofar as they seek to join the Commission and Bangalow as respondents.  There was never any basis for the Minister to be joined as a party or to be nominated as a party in a proceeding and he should have his costs of the proceeding.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss the Minister’s motion filed 2 April 2001.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Goldberg.

Associate:

Dated:             19 April 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	P J Flanagan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland
Date of Hearing:	18 April 2001
Date of Judgment:	18 April 2001