Legal Research
Cases
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 30 November 2011 6 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ,
GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ
ROADSHOW FILMS PTY LTD & ORS APPELLANTS
AND
IINET LIMITED RESPONDENT
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2011] HCA 54
30 November 2011
S288/2011
ORDER
1.The summons for intervention by the Australian Recording Industry Association Limited be dismissed.

2.The summons for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Screen Actors Guild be dismissed.

3.Leave be given to the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited to be heard as amicus curiae only to the extent that its submissions do not duplicate the submissions of a party.

4.The summons for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Australian Privacy Foundation be dismissed.

5.Leave be granted to the Communications Alliance Limited to be heard as amicus curiae only to the extent that its submissions do not duplicate the submissions of a party.

6.The summons for intervention and for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Australian Digital Alliance Ltd be dismissed.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
A J L Bannon SC with J M Hennessy SC and C Dimitriadis for the appellants (instructed by Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers)
R Cobden SC with R P L Lancaster SC and C J Burgess for the respondent (instructed by Herbert Geer Lawyers)
Interveners
M J Leeming SC seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited (instructed by Banki Haddock Fiora)
C A Moore SC seeking leave to intervene on behalf of the Australian Recording Industry Association Limited (instructed by Allens Arthur Robinson Lawyers)
M R Hall seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Screen Actors Guild (instructed by Banki Haddock Fiora)
E J C Heerey seeking leave to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Australian Digital Alliance Ltd (instructed by Australian Digital Alliance Ltd)
P W Flynn seeking leave to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Communications Alliance Limited (instructed by Carwardine Legal Solicitors)
No appearance for the Australian Privacy Foundation seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ. There are before the Court six summonses. The Australian Recording Industry Association Limited ("ARIA") seeks leave to intervene to make submissions to the Court in support of the appeal. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, jointly with the Screen Actors Guild ("the Guild"), applies for leave to intervene as an amicus curiae. So, too, do the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited ("APRA") and the Australian Privacy Foundation ("the Privacy Foundation"). The Communications Alliance Limited ("the Communications Alliance") and the Australian Digital Alliance Ltd ("the Digital Alliance") each seeks leave to be heard as amicus curiae and, alternatively, leave to intervene.
In…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] HCA 54
Decision Date: 30 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered applications for leave to intervene and to be heard as amicus curiae in proceedings between Roadshow Films Pty Ltd and iiNet Ltd. The dispute concerned allegations of copyright infringement by iiNet's customers. Several third parties sought to participate in the proceedings, either as interveners or as friends of the court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the criteria for granting leave to third parties to intervene or to be heard as amicus curiae in appellate proceedings. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the applicants had demonstrated that their intervention or submissions would significantly assist the Court and that their interests were directly affected by the outcome of the appeal.

The Court applied principles governing the joinder of parties and the admission of amici curiae, emphasising that such applications are exceptional. It considered the potential for duplication of arguments already presented by the parties and the extent to which the proposed submissions would genuinely assist the Court in its determination of the legal issues. The Court distinguished between the roles of interveners and amici curiae, noting that intervention typically requires a more direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications for intervention by the Australian Recording Industry Association Limited and the Australian Digital Alliance Ltd. It also dismissed the applications for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Australian Privacy Foundation. However, limited leave was granted to the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited and Communications Alliance Limited to be heard as amicus curiae, subject to the condition that their submissions did not duplicate those of the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The summons for intervention by the Australian Recording Industry Association Limited be dismissed.

2. The summons for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Screen Actors Guild be dismissed.

3. Leave be given to the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited to be heard as amicus curiae only to the extent that its submissions do not duplicate the submissions of a party.

4. The summons for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Australian Privacy Foundation be dismissed.

5. Leave be granted to the Communications Alliance Limited to be heard as amicus curiae only to the extent that its submissions do not duplicate the submissions of a party.

6. The summons for intervention and for leave to be heard as amicus curiae by the Australian Digital Alliance Ltd be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.