BURCHETT J: This is an application for a stay of certain orders pending an appeal. The reasons I am about to deliver are the reasons of the Court.
In this case, difficult and complex questions arose as to the application of the Copyright Act 1968 to computer software. Counsel for the respondent does not contend that the appeal lacks substance. The circumstances are unusual.
The judgment under appeal contains findings of fact that the respondent, which was the applicant below, delayed for its own purposes and reasons over a period of several years before seeking the injunctive relief it has been granted. Prima facie that suggests a stay would not impose any severe burden on the respondent. The evidence before us shows that a refusal of a stay would impose a severe burden on the applicant.
The principles applicable depend on the terms of order 52, rule 17 of the Rules of the Court. Rule 17(1) provides:
"An appeal to the Court shall not:
(a) operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the judgment appealed from; or -
...
except so far as the Court or a Judge or the court below may direct."
The language of that rule suggests no limitation upon a broad discretion inhering in the Court. Several judges of the Court, most recently Heerey J in Russell Fraser Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (Number 4), in which judgment was delivered on 2 May last, have followed the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed)(1985) 2 NSWLR 685, where, at 694, that Court said it was "sufficient that the applicant for the stay demonstrates a reason or an appropriate case to warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour". The…
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 Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation [1996] FCA 460
Case
[1996] FCA 460
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation, the appellants sought a stay of certain orders pending an appeal against a decision made by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved complex questions regarding the application of the Copyright Act 1968 to computer software. The respondents did not contest the substance of the appeal, and the circumstances were deemed unusual, as the judgment under appeal found that the respondent had delayed in seeking injunctive relief for several years for its own purposes. This finding suggested that a stay would not impose a significant burden on the respondents, whereas a refusal to stay would severely burden the appellants.
The court was required to decide the principles applicable to granting a stay of orders pending an appeal under Order 52, Rule 17 of the Federal Court Rules. The rule provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under the judgment appealed from, except as the court may direct. The court noted that the language of the rule suggests a broad discretion inherent in the court. The court considered previous decisions, such as Russell Fraser Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (Number 4) and Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed), which established that a sufficient case must be shown for the exercise of the court's discretion to grant a stay. The court also noted that a more stringent test has generally been applied in the Supreme Court of Victoria, but decided to follow the decisions in Alexander v Cambridge Credit.
The court held that "special" circumstances do not have to be shown for the exercise of the court's discretion. It found that a sufficient case had been shown for the exercise of its discretion and decided to order a stay upon appropriate undertakings. The court considered the undertakings offered by the appellants and accepted them, including maintaining records of sales, not destroying records, not disposing of assets, not granting a distributorship for PFX Plus, and taking steps to expedite the appeal hearing. The court ordered that certain orders be stayed until further order and that the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.