Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 7)

In the matter of Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 7), the court was presented with an application to adjourn the hearing of a notice of motion. The underlying dispute involved claims of legal professional privilege concerning communications between in-house lawyers of Optus Mobile. The applicants, Media Ocean Limited, sought to challenge the privilege claims, contending that the evidence provided by Optus Mobile was inadequate and potentially prejudicial. The legal issues before the court included whether the adjournment should be granted under the principles of case management and the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

The court examined the arguments put forth by both parties. Media Ocean argued that the evidence provided by Optus Mobile was insufficient to meet the onus of proof required for a privilege claim. They contended that the hearsay evidence, which was not subject to cross-examination, was unreliable and prejudicial. In response, Optus Mobile sought an adjournment to present additional evidence, arguing that the current evidence was inadequate to address the broader question of privilege. The court considered the potential prejudice to Media Ocean if the motion was decided without the possibility of presenting further evidence, and weighed this against the principles of case management which favour timely resolution of disputes.

After evaluating the submissions, the court determined that the application for an adjournment should be granted, but with specific conditions. The adjournment was to allow Optus Mobile to present additional evidence and address the deficiencies identified by Media Ocean. The court emphasised the importance of case management and the need to resolve the dispute efficiently, while also ensuring that both parties had the opportunity to present their best case. The court also imposed specific timelines for the submission of further evidence and submissions, and ordered Optus Mobile to pay the costs associated with the adjournment.

The final orders included listing the motion for hearing on specific dates, setting deadlines for the submission of additional evidence and further submissions, and directing Optus Mobile to pay the costs incurred by Media Ocean due to the adjournment. The court also scheduled a further directions hearing to ensure that the matter could proceed efficiently.