Brenton Hill v Frank Lang - [2012] HCASL 139

BRENTON HILL
v
FRANK LANG
[2012] HCASL 139
A12/2012

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court claiming damages for breach of copyright in a cinematographic film with a sound recording. The respondent was a musician in a band. He wished to make a DVD of one of the band's live performances. The applicant was one of three camera operators who filmed the performance. An audio engineer recorded the performance and worked with the respondent to create the DVD. After a trial in which the parties were not represented, Simpson FM preferred the respondent's evidence to the applicant's. His Honour found that the respondent agreed with the applicant to pay him $500 for his work. His Honour found that the respondent paid the applicant that amount. He also found that by reason of s 98(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) the respondent was the owner of the relevant copyright in the film and sound recordings.
The Federal Court of Australia (Besanko J) dismissed an appeal by the applicant. Again, the parties were unrepresented. Besanko J rejected an allegation that Simpson FM was affected by bias. He rejected challenges to Simpson FM's findings of fact. He treated as irrelevant issues of assignment and criminal conduct. He rejected the applicant's reliance on s 98(4) of the Act, which was not in force at the relevant time. And he rejected challenges to the credit of witnesses whom Simpson FM had accepted.
The relevant grounds for the applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court are:
"2.1    Decisions made of these judgments are made under false pretences.
2.2      decisions made by the judiciary on this matter are incorrect and unworthy of the law.
2.3      I have suffered conduct of victimisation from the judiciary, registrar of the federal court and Mr Lang".
The terms of the draft Notice of Appeal and of the applicant's Summary of Argument are vexatious and embarrassing. In particular, in view of the abusive language employed in relation to the judges who have dealt with this case so far, if there were any point in doing so, they ought to be removed from the file. The papers do not reveal any reason for thinking that those judges have erred in any respect.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brenton Hill v Frank Lang and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] HCASL 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brenton Hill initiated legal action in the Federal Magistrates Court against Frank Lang, seeking damages for the alleged breach of copyright in a cinematographic film accompanied by a sound recording. Hill, one of three camera operators who filmed a live performance of Lang's band, claimed that Lang intended to produce a DVD of the performance. The case proceeded without legal representation for either party. Simpson FM, the Federal Magistrate, found in favour of Lang, concluding that Lang and Hill had agreed on a payment of $500 for Hill's contribution and that this amount had been paid. Additionally, Simpson FM determined that Lang, under Section 98(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), was the rightful owner of the copyright for the film and sound recordings.

Hill appealed the Federal Magistrates Court's decision to the Federal Court of Australia, where Besanko J dismissed the appeal. Besanko J rejected Hill's claim of bias against Simpson FM and upheld the findings of fact made by the magistrate. Issues related to the assignment of copyright and criminal conduct were deemed irrelevant. Besanko J also dismissed Hill's argument based on Section 98(4) of the Act, which was not applicable at the relevant time. Furthermore, challenges to the credibility of witnesses accepted by Simpson FM were rejected.

Hill subsequently applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The grounds for this application were that the earlier decisions were based on false premises, the judiciary had made incorrect and unworthy decisions, and Hill had experienced victimization by the judiciary and the registrar of the federal court, as well as by Lang. The application was dismissed, with the court noting the vexatious and embarrassing nature of the draft Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument, particularly due to the abusive language used against the judges. The court found no basis to believe that the judges had erred in their decisions. An order was issued to dismiss the application, and the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal the order.

Orders