News Ltd v Australian Rugby League Ltd Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                 ) No NG 197/95 & NG 229/95
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS

Respondents

Coram:           Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date:              13 March 1996
Place:              Sydney

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.The appeal be expedited.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.A general stay of execution of orders made by Burchett J. on 11 March 1996 be refused.

3. There be a stay of orders 7, 8, 9, 15, 15A, 15B, 18 and 33.
The stay should continue until the determination of the appeal or further order.

4.The costs of the motion of the parties to the proceedings below should be costs in the appeal.

5.There be no order as to the costs of the interveners.

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 NG 197/95 & NG 229/95
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED & ORS

Respondents

Coram:           Davies, Lockhart & Hill JJ.
Date:              13 March 1996
Place:              Sydney

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Court: The Court has formed a view and considers that it is preferable to deal with the matter briefly rather than to reserve and give more detailed reasons.

The matter before the Court is an application for a stay of the orders made by his Honour, Burchett J, on 11 March 1996. A stay is sought pending the hearing and determination of a proposed appeal. It is clear that the appeal, when it comes on, will raise many important and difficult issues and that the appeal will be of considerable public interest. It is our view that the appeal should be expedited and a direction to that effect will be given.

The circumstances of the case are exceptional and such that, whatever order the Court may make, one party or another may be disadvantaged, and quite seriously, for the matters at stake between the parties are of very great importance to them.

The substantial issue is whether Super League should be permitted to commence its competition in 1996 in competition with that of the Australian Rugby League ("the League") or whether the status quo which prevailed during 1995 should be preserved.

In our opinion, it accords with the principles on which these applications are determined and it is in the public interest that the status quo should be continued. We therefore think that a general stay of the orders below should not be granted.

However, there are some orders which fall into a different position. These are particularly the orders affecting individual players who have contracted with Super League, and also orders dealing with the transfer of property.

We have been informed that there are over 300 players who have signed with Super League and that many did so after their contracts with a League club had expired or they had been released from them. The players were not parties to the proceedings below. The orders made by his Honour contained an order that directions should be given to the players requiring them to play with their former League club or, if that be not practicable, with another League club nominated by the League.

We are of the view that it would be appropriate to stay these orders, particularly as there is a question as to whether clause 4.1 of the Standard Terms, which was referred
to in his Honour's order, has the effect for which the Australian Rugby League contends.

For these reasons we are of the view that there should be a stay of orders 7, 8, 9, 15, 15A, 15B, 18 and 33. The stay should continue until the determination of the appeal or further order.

The costs of the motion of the parties to the proceedings below should be costs in the appeal, but there will be no order as to the costs of the interveners.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages
are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Court.

Associate:

Date: 13 March 1996

Counsel for the applicant,
the 1st cross-respondent & the
2nd to 21st & the 31st cross-
respondents:  J.D. Heydon QC
  I.M. Jackman
  T.D. Castle
  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
P. Wines

Solicitors for the players: Atanaskovic Hartnell

Counsel for the 3rd to 6th & 8th
respondents & the 22nd, 26th, 28th
& 30th cross-respondents &
the Cowboys Rugby Football
League Ltd:  C.A. Sweeney QC
  J.J.J. Garnsey QC
  P. Dowdy

Solicitors for the 3rd to 6th & 8th
respondents & the 22nd, 26th, 28th
& 30th cross-respondents: Phillips Fox

Solicitors for the Cowboys Rugby

Football League Ltd: Phillips Fox
as agents for Suthers & Taylor, Lawyers

Counsel for the
Rugby Football League:
  A.B. Shand QC
  C. 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
  D.K. Catterns QC
  A.J.L. Bannon
  R.J. Weber
  D.B. Studdy
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
  A.J. Payne
Solicitors for the 7th & 9th to 19th
respondents:  Gilbert & Tobin

Date of hearing: 13 March 1996

Date of judgment: 13 March 1996

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of News Limited versus Australian Rugby League Limited was heard by Davies, Lockhart and Hill JJ. This case involved a dispute over the broadcasting rights of rugby league matches. The Australian Rugby League (ARL) sought to prevent News Limited from broadcasting the newly formed Super League's matches, arguing that this would breach existing agreements. News Limited, on the other hand, claimed that it had rights to broadcast these matches independently.

The court had to determine whether News Limited had the right to broadcast Super League matches and if so, whether the existing agreements with ARL should be overridden. The case also involved interpreting the terms of various contracts and understanding the implications of these agreements on broadcasting rights. The court needed to assess whether the formation of the Super League constituted a breach of contract and whether the broadcasting rights were exclusive to ARL or could be shared with other entities.

The court decided that while a general stay of execution of the orders made by Burchett J should be refused, there should be a stay on certain orders affecting individual players and the transfer of property. The judges found that the appeal was of considerable public interest and should be expedited. They held that the status quo should be maintained pending the appeal, but certain orders affecting players and property should be stayed. The court concluded that the players who had contracted with Super League should not be compelled to play with their former ARL clubs unless it was practical or if they were nominated by the League. The court also decided that the costs of the motion should be costs in the appeal, but there would be no order regarding the costs of the interveners.

News Ltd v Australian Rugby League Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established