Heard v CBFC Limited

Case [2008] FCA 1611

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Heard v CBFC Limited [2008] FCA 1611

RUSSELL JOHN HEARD v CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462

VID 655 of 2008

NORTH J
20 OCTOBER 2008
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 655 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

RUSSELL JOHN HEARD
Appellant
AND:

CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462
Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 OCTOBER 2008

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 25 September 2008.

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


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 655 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

RUSSELL JOHN HEARD
Appellant
AND:

CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462
Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

20 OCTOBER 2008

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. A motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent, CBFC Limited, on 25 September 2008 seeking that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent was returnable today.  I am satisfied that the appellant, Russell John Heard, was served on 13 October 2008 with the motion and supporting material on the basis of an affidavit sworn by Robert Leslie Jacobs on 16 October 2008.  

  2. The second directions hearing in this appeal was listed also for today.  The appellant was also bound to appear before the Court at the previous directions hearing on 29 September 2008.  He did not appear on that occasion, but rather phoned the Court at 10.44am advising that he was unwell and would not be attending the Court.  The appellant stated to an officer of the Court that he was intending to fax a medical certificate to the Court and asked that it be passed on to the judge.  The appellant apologised for not being able to attend.  In the meantime, no such medical certificate has been received by the Court.

  3. The appellant did not appear today and no explanation was received regarding the appellant’s absence.  

  4. Section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides:

    (2B) A single Judge or a Full Court may:
    …
              (bb) make an order that an appeal to the Court be dismissed for:
      (i) …
      (ii) failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal;

  5. The appellant has failed to attend the hearing of the second directions and the motion. The appeal will be dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:        20 October 2008

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Cipriano
Solicitor for the Respondent: Gadens Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 20 October 2008
Date of Judgment: 20 October 2008
Details
AGLC
Heard v CBFC Limited [2008] FCA 1611
Case
[2008] FCA 1611
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Heard, brought an appeal against the decision of the Classification Review Board, which upheld a classification decision made by the Classification Board (CBFC Limited). The dispute centred around the classification of a film, "The Dreamers", under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth). The primary issue was whether the film was suitable to be classified as "R" or whether it should be classified as "RC" (Refused Classification). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate classification for the film "The Dreamers" and whether the Classification Review Board's decision to uphold the "R" classification was legally sound. This involved examining the content of the film and assessing whether it met the criteria for an "R" classification as outlined in the Classification Code. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Classification Review Board's decision was reasonable and if there were any errors in law or procedure.

The Federal Court found that the Classification Review Board's decision to classify "The Dreamers" as "R" was reasonable and legally sound. The court examined the film's content and concluded that it did not meet the criteria for an "RC" classification. The court further held that the Classification Review Board had properly exercised its discretion and that there were no errors in law or procedure. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original classification was upheld. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 25 September 2008.

Note:

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

NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.