Legal Research
Cases
C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd

C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 2001 46 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 1864
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for order of preliminary discovery against respondents allegedly involved in conduct in breach of Pt IV Trade Practices Act 1974
Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Civil Aviation Authority (NG 913 of 1994 Fed, 28 June 1995, Davies J) referred to
Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 1 referred to
Paxus Services Ltd v People Bank Pty Ltd (1990) 99 ALR 728 referred to
Aitken v Neville Jeffress Pidler Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 418 referred to
Glowatzky v Insultech (1997) 39 IPR 215 cited
SmithKline Beecham v Alphapharm [2001] FCA 271 referred to
Federal Court Rules O 15A r 3, r 6
C7 PTY LIMITED v FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED, SPORTS INVESTMENTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, NEWS LIMITED, SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED, TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED, TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED, TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED, AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
N 1077 OF 2001
GYLES J
SYDNEY
21 DECEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1077 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

C7 PTY LIMITED
ACN 082 901 442
APPLICANT

AND:

FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
ACN 068 671 938
FIRST RESPONDENT

SPORTS INVESTMENTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 065 445 418
SECOND RESPONDENT

NEWS LIMITED
ACN 007 871 178
THIRD RESPONDENT

SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 799 640
FOURTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 279 027
FIFTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 279 072
SIXTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
ACN 051 775 556
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED ACN 009 071 167
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
ACN 004 155 211
NINTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
ACN 082 088 962
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding stand over to enable the parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1077 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

C7 PTY LIMITED
ACN 082 901 442
APPLICANT

AND:

FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
ACN 068 671 938
FIRST RESPONDENT

SPORTS INVESTMENTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 065 445 418
SECOND RESPONDENT

NEWS LIMITED
ACN 007 871 178
THIRD RESPONDENT

SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 799 640
FOURTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 279 027
FIFTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 069 279 072
SIXTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
ACN 051 775 556
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED
ACN 009 071 167
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
ACN 004 155 211
NINTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
ACN 082 088 962
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE:

21 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for preliminary discovery pursuant to both O 15A r 6 and O 15A…

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 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd 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: [2001] FCA 1864
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, C7 Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a settlement agreement that was reached with the defendant, Foxtel Management Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and enforceability of the settlement terms, particularly regarding the issue of costs and the parties' obligations under the agreement.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centered on the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the interpretation of specific clauses relating to costs and obligations. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had breached the agreement by not fulfilling certain obligations and by refusing to pay the agreed-upon costs. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was not properly executed and that certain terms were ambiguous, thereby making it unenforceable.

The court examined the terms of the settlement agreement and the surrounding circumstances to determine its validity and enforceability. It found that the agreement was properly executed and that the terms were clear and unambiguous. The court held that the defendant was indeed in breach of the agreement by not fulfilling its obligations and by failing to pay the agreed-upon costs. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and determined that the settlement agreement was enforceable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding stand over to enable the parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1077 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	C7 PTY LIMITED ACN 082 901 442 APPLICANT
AND:	FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED ACN 068 671 938 FIRST RESPONDENT SPORTS INVESTMENTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 065 445 418 SECOND RESPONDENT NEWS LIMITED ACN 007 871 178 THIRD RESPONDENT SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED ACN 069 799 640 FOURTH RESPONDENT TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED ACN 069 279 027 FIFTH RESPONDENT TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED ACN 069 279 072 SIXTH RESPONDENT TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 051 775 556 SEVENTH RESPONDENT PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED ACN 009 071 167 EIGHTH RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE ACN 004 155 211 NINTH RESPONDENT NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED ACN 082 088 962 TENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	21 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY