Hill v Lang - [2011] FMCA 573

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HILL v LANG

[2011] FMCA 573

COPYRIGHT – Action for breach of copyright of cinematographic film and sound recording – applicant found not to be the owner of the copyright – application dismissed.

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s.10, 22(4) and sub-ss.98(2) & (3)

Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 144

Applicant:

BRENTON HILL

Respondent:

FRANK LANG

File Number:

ADG 100 of 2009

Judgment of:

Simpson FM

Hearing date:

16 December 2010

Date of Last Submission:

17 December 2010

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

27 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Respondent:

In person

ORDERS

The Application be dismissed.
The applicant do pay the respondent’s costs to be agreed or taxed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 100 of 2009

BRENTON HILL

Applicant

And

FRANK LANG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application for damages for breach of copyright in a cinematographic film with a sound recording which has been brought by the applicant, Brenton Hill. Mr Hill has the nick name “Benny” and was sometimes referred to as such in the evidence.
Neither party has had legal representation throughout the proceedings. Whilst orders were made that the matter proceed by way of pleadings, I have not found the Statement of Claim and Defence to have properly identified the issues to be decided. This is, in large part, as a result of the applicant making no effort to comply with the rules as to pleadings. In the circumstances, I have not thought it appropriate to make further orders that the parties file amended pleadings that comply with the Rules. Instead, I have proceeded on the basis that the trial concerns each of the parties claiming that they are the true owner of the copyright. I have also allowed affidavits to be received as evidence notwithstanding that they contain much objectionable material and do not comply with the rules. I have thought it necessary to adopt this approach to pleadings and evidence as no adjournment of the proceedings or further trial directions would, in my view, be likely to result in a significant improvement in either.
In these reasons a statement of fact is to be treated as a finding of fact arrived at on the balance of probabilities after a consideration of all of the evidence that has been put before me, whether oral or by affidavit, and my assessment of the witnesses.

The Evidence

The applicant relied on the following affidavits:
a)Affidavit of Brenton Hill, sworn 16 September 2010 and filed the same day;
b)Further affidavit of Brenton Hill, sworn 16 September 2010 and filed the same day;
c)Affidavit of Brenton Hill, sworn 8 October 2010 and filed the same day;
d)Affidavit of Brenton Hill, sworn 15 October 2010 and filed the same day; and
e)Affidavit of Brenton Hill, sworn 2 December 2010 and filed the same day.
The respondent relied upon the following affidavits:
a)Affidavit of Frank Lang, sworn 6 October 2010 and filed…

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.

Continue reading Hill v Lang

Details

AGLC: Hill v Lang [2011] FMCA 573
Case: [2011] FMCA 573
Decision Date: 27 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hill v Lang was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Hill, sought to challenge a decision made by the respondent, Lang, which involved a dispute over a property settlement. Hill contended that the settlement was unfair and sought to overturn the decision made by Lang. The court was required to determine whether Hill's application was valid and whether the decision made by Lang was just and equitable.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Hill's application was made within the appropriate timeframe and whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Additionally, the court had to examine the fairness of the property settlement and determine if the decision made by Lang was reasonable. The court also considered whether there were any grounds for Hill to appeal the decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Hill's application was not made within the appropriate timeframe and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision made by Lang was fair and equitable, and there were no grounds for Hill to appeal the decision. The court held that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed the application. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, to be agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application be dismissed.

The applicant do pay the respondent’s costs to be agreed or taxed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.