News Ltd v Australian Rugby League Ltd
[1996] FCA 199
•25 MARCH 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG213/96
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED & ORS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS
Respondent
Coram: Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date: 25 March 1996
Place: Sydney
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The stay on the orders 15, 15A, 15B and 18 made by the Honourable Justice Burchett on 11 March 1996, granted by the Court on 13 March 1996, be terminated.
2.There be substituted for the times set out in the said orders the time expiring at 5pm Wednesday, 27 March 1996.
3.Liberty to apply with respect to the orders 7, 8, 9 and 33 made by the Honourable Justice Burchett on 11 March 1996, stayed by the Court on 13 March 1996, be reserved.
4.Costs be reserved.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG213/96
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED & ORS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS
Respondent
Coram: Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date: 25 March 1996
Place: Sydney
REASONS FOR DECISION
Davies J: This is an application to the Court to terminate orders by way of stay which the Court made on 13 March 1996. On that date the Court dealt with two types of orders. One group comprised orders which generally were directed to the Super League and the second group was a group of orders which had particular effect upon the players.
The Court refused a stay of the first group of orders but did stay the second group. However, when the Court expressed its view, it said that:-
"The substantial issue is whether the Super League should be permitted to commence its competition in 1996 in competition with the competition of the Australian Rugby League or whether the status quo which prevailed during 1995 should be preserved."
The Court said that it:
"... accords with the principles on which these applications [for a stay] are determined and it was in the public interest that the status quo should be continued."
It was my view then, and it is my view now, that until the hearing and determination of the appeal, there should be only one competition in New South Wales and that should be the competition controlled and run by the Australian and New South Wales Rugby Leagues, and for my own part, although Mr Ellicott will say I may have been naive in taking the view, I thought that the parties would understand that point and would understand that it was the view of the Court that another competition should not be established pending the hearing of the appeal.
My own view was then, and it is now, that had effect been given to that view the desirable orders were as the Court made them. But since that time events have proceeded and there has been the announcement of the establishment of a rugby league competition in competition with that controlled by the Australian and New South Wales Rugby League Associations. That, in my opinion, gives rise to the circumstance that the orders as made by the Court did not operate satisfactorily and for that reason I am persuaded that the stay upon orders 15, 15A, 15B and 18 should be terminated.
In saying that I should state once again that the function of the Court is only to implement a regime until this appeal can be heard and nothing that is said today and nothing that was said on 13 March 1996 should be taken as an indication by the Court as to what is the Court's view on the appeal.
The points that will arise on the appeal are complex and they will take a great deal of consideration. But until then it seems to me that some regime should apply and it was my opinion earlier, and it continues to be my opinion, that there should only be one rugby league competition pending the appeal. This accords with the orders of Burchett J. He has heard the matter and has made orders and I think that because of those orders, and because it was the status quo, the status quo should be continued.
I would therefore terminate the stay on orders 15, 15A, 15B and 18. I would substitute for the times which are set out in Burchett J's orders the time expiring at 5pm on Wednesday, 27th March 1996. As to orders 7, 8, 9 and 33 I would reserve liberty to apply in case it is desired that there be any further order made in respect of them.
I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages
are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Honourable Justice Davies.
Associate:
Date: 25 March 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG213/96
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED & ORS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS
Respondent
Coram: Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date: 25 March 1996
Place: Sydney
REASONS FOR DECISION
Lockhart J: I agree with the learned presiding judge that the intent of the orders of the Full Court on 13 March last was that the status quo as then expressed by us should be continued. I would myself not further amplify that statement. However, I am not persuaded that the orders of the Court made on that occasion should be varied at all. I agree, however, that liberty to apply should be reserved in the terms outlined by the presiding Judge. I also agree that nothing said by this Court on 13 March or today should be taken as suggesting that the Court has any view with respect to the appeal. Speaking for myself, I have none.
I certify that this is a true copy of the reasons
for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lockhart.
Associate:
Date: 25 March 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG213/96
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED & ORS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS
Respondent
Coram: Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date: 25 March 1996
Place: Sydney
REASONS FOR DECISION
Hill J: I agree with the orders proposed by Davies J. For myself I should say that had an undertaken been given by the players represented by Mr Hughes of senior counsel that was unconditional, (that is to say that was not dependent upon an undertaking being given by the Australian Rugby League) that those players would not participate in another competition, I would have been inclined to have agreed with Lockhart J.
Certainly there are difficulties in the way of orders which may be seen as requiring players to play in circumstances where those players would not wish so to do. However, it is a matter at the moment of weighing up the problems which such an order may create with the situation that the Australian Rugby League have obtained orders from Burchett J which prima facie should continue until an appeal has been heard against them.
In an effort to maintain the status quo as this Court has attempted to do it seems to me that it is appropriate that the variations to the orders suggested by Davies J be made. Like my brother judges I have certainly no view at all as to what ultimately should happen in the event of an appeal.
I certify that this and the preceding page are
a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Honourable Justice Hill.
Associate:
Date: 25 March 1996
Counsel for the applicant,
the 1st cross-respondent & the
2nd to 21st & the 31st cross-
respondents: J.D. Heydon QC
R. Cobden
Solicitors for the applicant,
the 1st cross-respondent & the
2nd to 21st & the 31st cross-
respondents: Atanaskovic Hartnell
Counsel for the players: The Hon. T.E.F. Hughes AO, QC
J.L.B. Allsop, SC
P. Wines
Solicitors for the players: Gadens Ridgeway
Counsel for the 3rd to 6th & 8th
respondents & the 22nd, 26th, 28th
& 30th cross-respondents: C.A. Sweeney QC
P. Dowdy
Solicitors for the 3rd to 6th & 8th
respondents & the 22nd, 26th, 28th
& 30th cross-respondents: Phillips Fox
Counsel for the
Cowboys Rugby Football J.J.J. Garnsey QC
League Ltd: P. Dowdy
Solicitors for the Cowboys Rugby
Football League Ltd: Phillips Fox
as agents for Suthers & Taylor, Lawyers
Counsel for the
Rugby Football League: W.H. Nicholas QC
G. O'L. Reynolds
Solicitors for the Rugby
Football League: Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for the 1st & 2nd respondents
& for the 1st & 2nd cross-claimants: R.J. Ellicott QC
Solicitors for the 1st &
2nd respondents & for the 1st
& 2nd cross-claimants: Gilbert & Tobin
as agents for Colin W. Love & Co
Counsel for the 7th & 9th to 19th
respondents: J.J. Spigelman QC
Solicitors for the 7th & 9th to 19th
respondents: Gilbert & Tobin
Date of hearing: 25 March 1996
Date of judgment: 25 March 1996
0
0
0