FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Heard v CBFC Limited (No 3) [2009] FCA 318
RUSSELL JOHN HEARD v CBFC LIMITED (ACN 008 519 462)
VID 655 of 2008
NORTH J
30 MARCH 2009
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:
30 MARCH 2009
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The motion, notice of which was filed by the applicant on 30 December 2008, be dismissed.
2.The applicant 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
Appellant
AND: CBFC LIMITED (ACN 008 519 462)
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE:
30 MARCH 2009
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a motion, notice of which was given by the appellant on 30 December 2008, seeking reinstatement of his appeal which had been dismissed on 8 December 2008 for non-appearance.
The appellant failed to originally appear on 2 March 2009 to pursue the motion for reinstatement. On that day, the motion was adjourned until today, 30 March 2009.
The appellant has yet again failed to appear to pursue the motion for reinstatement. On the basis of his failure to appear, the motion for reinstatement is dismissed. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to deal with the respondent’s motion filed on 20 February 2009 seeking that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate:
Dated: 30 March 2009
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms A Koumides of Gadens Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 30 March 2009 Date of Judgment: 30 March 2009
- AGLC
- Heard v CBFC Limited (No 3) [2009] FCA 318
- Case
- [2009] FCA 318
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine if the Classification Review Board had correctly interpreted and applied the criteria set out in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Specifically, the court examined whether the classification assigned to the film was appropriate and whether the process by which the classification was determined was procedurally fair and in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court considered whether there were any errors in the Review Board’s interpretation of the legislation that could have affected the outcome of the classification decision.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. The court found that the Classification Review Board had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and had not erred in its interpretation of the law. The decision-making process was deemed procedurally fair, and the classification assigned to the film was appropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant’s motion and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the motion. This outcome upheld the classification decision of the Classification Review Board and affirmed the legal soundness of its process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The motion, notice of which was filed by the applicant on 30 December 2008, be dismissed.
2. The applicant 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.