News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd

[1996] FCA 1204

- -

/zo* J2Z6

JUDGMENT NO. m*.-

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 197 of 1995

)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED

Applicant

AND : AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE

LIMITED & ANOTHER

Cross-Claimants in the First

Cross-Claim

AND : NEWS LIMITED & OTHERS

Cross-Respondents to the First

Cross-Claim

AND BETWEEN:

FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED & OTHERS

Cross-Claimants in the Second

Cross-Claim

AND : NEWS LIMITED & OTHERS

Cross-Respondents to the Second

Cross-Claim

AND BETWEEN:

BRISBANE BRONCOS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB

LIMITED & OTHERS

Cross-Claimants in additional

Cross-Claims

AND :

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE

LIMITED & ANOTHER

Cross-Respondents to additional

Cross-Claims

CORAM: Burchett J.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 11 March 1996

L.

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I make the orders which are contained in the document I have had prepared utilising the various short minutes that

were handed up. I will have that handed down now.

A stay has been sought pending an application for leave

to appeal, and pending any appeal. I think it would be right

to stay order 8 upon the appointment of a Receiver on

L4

appropriate terms.

As regards the remaining orders, it has to be borne in mind that the proceedings were brought on, conducted, and determined with a considerable sense of urgency. This was done, quite expressly, as a more desirable course than the holding of an interlocutory hearing in the middle of last year. All parties expressed or acquiesced in the view that I should decide the matter, before the commencement of the 1996 competition, for the very reason that some finality about the

V

claims and counter-claims affecting the conduct of that

competition was seen as essential.

I have complied with that aim and delivered a decision. It would, I think, be inconsistent with the basis on which the proceedings were heard to hold now that the balance of convenience favours a stay. The wounds which I have held were unlawfully inflicted upon the cross-claimants might well prove fatal if they were not stanched by appropriate and immediate

3.

relief. There was a great deal of evidence that two premier

competitions are not sustainable.

What I do today is to make the orders I have held to be required now, indicating only that I am prepared to stay order 8 on the basis I have mentioned. Otherwise, I refuse any stay, and apart from the comments I have just made, I reserve my full reasons for these orders, including the matter of a stay.

L

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages

are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein

of his Honour Justice Burchett.

Associate:

Date: 12 March 1996