Ross and Ors v IceTV Pty Ltd - [2011] HCATrans 214

[2011] HCATrans 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S263 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
STUART DUNCAN ROSS
First Applicant
PETER VOGEL
Second Applicant
VOGEL ROSS PTY LTD
Third Applicant
and
ICETV PTY LTD ACN 003 552 216
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2011, AT 11.42 AM

MR I.M. NEIL, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. HEATH, for the applicants. (instructed by Goldie Corporate Counsel)

MR J.M. IRELAND, QC: If your Honours please, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.S. COOKE, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Argyle Lawyers Pty Ltd)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Neil.

MR NEIL: The principles of The Restraint of Trade Doctrine are well settled and universal, but this case demonstrates that their application is not. The Restraint of Trade Doctrine balances two competing considerations. One is the basal concept of the common law, that the sterilisation of productive labour is antithetical to the public interest. The second interest is the private interest of employers in protecting their confidential information and their customer connections from misuse. This case is an instance of the courts going too far, too far away from the public interest, and too far towards protecting the interests of employers.

In New South Wales the starting point, as the Court of Appeal observed, is the Restraints of Trade Act. That Act provides the framework to consider the questions that arise in this case, but the questions are universal. The Restraints of Trade Act poses two questions. The first question is whether the defendants have contravened the restraints in question according to their proper construction. That question was resolved against us and we do not challenge that conclusion.

The second question which arises only in circumstances such as this case is whether the restraints, when applied to the breach, are contrary to public policy. They will be contrary to public policy if, when applied to that breach, they go further than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.

FRENCH CJ: Is your complaint really one about application of principle?

MR NEIL: Yes, but an application which in this case so completely robs the exceptions to the general rule from any content that it tips the balance too far in one direction.

KIEFEL J: Is this not essentially a question of construction of the contract that is in question?

MR NEIL: The uncertainty argument depends on the construction of the clause in question, that is so, your Honour, but the propositions that we are addressing now do not.

KIEFEL J: Reasonableness?

MR NEIL: Yes, and the answers to those questions do not depend on the construction of the covenants.

KIEFEL J: You are speaking in rather general terms about approaches. Where do you say 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 Ross and Ors v IceTV Pty 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] HCATrans 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ross and others, sought to restrain IceTV Pty Ltd from broadcasting certain television programs. The dispute concerned allegations of copyright infringement, specifically the unauthorised copying and broadcasting of television programs by IceTV. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether IceTV's actions constituted copyright infringement under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). This involved determining whether the programs broadcast by IceTV were substantially similar to the programs created by the applicants, and whether IceTV had made unauthorised copies of those programs. The court also considered the scope of the applicants' copyright in their television programs.

The High Court found that IceTV had infringed the copyright of the applicants. The court applied the principles of copyright law, focusing on the concept of substantial similarity. It held that IceTV had made unauthorised copies of the applicants' programs and that these copies were substantially similar to the original works, thereby infringing the exclusive rights of the copyright owners. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of protecting the creative expression embodied in television programs.

Orders