Brenton Hill v Frank Lang

[2012] HCASL 139

BRENTON HILL

v

FRANK LANG

[2012] HCASL 139
A12/2012

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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".

4. 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.

5. The application is dismissed.

6. 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