FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Heard v CBFC Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1896
RUSSELL JOHN HEARD v CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462
VID 655 of 2008
NORTH J
8 DECEMBER 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
AppellantAND: CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The motion, notice of which was filed on 10 November 2008 by the appellant is dismissed;
2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.
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
AppellantAND: CBFC LIMITED ACN 008 519 462
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE:
8 DECEMBER 2008
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a motion, notice of which was filed by the appellant on 10 November 2008, requesting the reinstatement of the hearing of his appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 20 October 2008 pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) due to the non-attendance of the appellant on that day.
The appellant failed to appear today to support his motion, which is a consistent pattern. For that reason, the motion will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate:
Dated: 11 December 2008
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms L Rhodes of Gadens Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 8 December 2008 Date of Judgment: 8 December 2008
- AGLC
- Heard v CBFC Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1896
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1896
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the classification decision was based on proper legal grounds and whether the classification process adhered to the relevant statutory framework. It considered the nature of the film, its content, and whether it met the criteria for classification under the applicable laws. The court also assessed whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair and whether there was any bias or improper consideration of extraneous factors.
In its reasoning, the court found that the classification refusal was justified and that the process followed was lawful and fair. The film's content was considered to be unsuitable for certain audiences, and the classification decision was based on a legitimate assessment of the material. The court further determined that the classification process was procedurally sound and that no bias or improper considerations influenced the decision.
The court dismissed the appellant's motion and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs associated with the motion. The decision upheld the classification refusal, affirming the respondent's actions as legally sound and procedurally fair.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The motion, notice of which was filed on 10 November 2008 by the appellant is dismissed;
2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: NORTH J
Full text does not contain this section.