Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 14) - [2006] FCA 500

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No 14)
[2006] FCA 500
EXPERT EVIDENCE – whether report on the value of a lost economic opportunity satisfies the requirements of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – admissibility of report
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79, 135
HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 cited
Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe) OV v Jetopay Pty Ltd (2000) 120 FCR 146 cited
SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED and ANOR v NEWS LIMITED and ORS
NSD 1223 of 2002
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
5 MAY 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1223 of 2002

BETWEEN:

SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED
(ACN 052 816 789)
FIRST APPLICANT

C7 PTY LIMITED
(ACN 082 901 442)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

NEWS LIMITED
(ACN 007 871 178)
FIRST RESPONDENT

SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 799 640)
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 279 027)
THIRD RESPONDENT

FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
(ACN 068 671 938)
FOURTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 279 072)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED
(ACN 009 071 167)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 008 685 407)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

PREMIER MEDIA GROUP PTY LIMITED
(ACN 065 445 418)
NINTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED
(ACN 003 107 293)
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 081 778 538)
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
(ACN 082 088 962)
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 008 797)
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

OPTUS VISION PTY LIMITED
(ACN 066 518 821)
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

AUSTAR UNITED COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(ACN 087 695 707)
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

AUSTAR ENTERTAINMENT PTY LIMITED
(ACN 068 104 530)
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

IAN HUNTLY PHILIP
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

NEWS PAY TV PTY LIMITED
(ACN 085 095 487)
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

PBL PAY TV PTY LIMITED
(ACN 084 940 367)
TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 052 833 208)
TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS:
1.The tender of Mr Salter’s report be rejected.

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

NSD 1223 of 2002

BETWEEN:

SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED
(ACN 052 816 789)
FIRST APPLICANT

C7 PTY LIMITED
(ACN 082 901 442)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

NEWS LIMITED
(ACN 007 871 178)
FIRST RESPONDENT

SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 799 640)
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 279 027)
THIRD RESPONDENT

FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
(ACN 068 671 938)
FOURTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 069 279 072)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED
(ACN 009 071 167)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 008 685 407)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

PREMIER MEDIA GROUP PTY LIMITED
(ACN 065 445 418)
NINTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE…

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 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 14) 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: [2006] FCA 500
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seven Network Ltd brought a case against News Ltd before an Australian court, seeking to prevent the publication of certain material they claimed was confidential and obtained improperly. The nature of the dispute involved allegations of media misconduct and breach of privacy laws, focusing on whether the published material was subject to any legal protections or exemptions. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over media law and privacy issues.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the published material was indeed confidential and whether its publication constituted a breach of privacy or any other legal protection. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented by Seven Network Ltd was admissible under the Evidence Act, specifically whether it could be excluded if it was deemed unfairly prejudicial or a waste of time.

In its reasoning, the court noted that if Seven Network Ltd pursued an argument based on confidential information or its misuse, it would need to consider section 135 of the Evidence Act. This section allows the court to exclude evidence if its prejudicial nature or potential for wasting time outweighs its probative value. The court also pointed out that the timing of such an argument, given the stage of the trial, might raise additional issues. Ultimately, the court concluded that the report of Mr. Salter should be rejected as it did not meet the necessary legal standards for admissibility.

The final orders of the court were that the tender of Mr. Salter’s report was rejected. This decision underscores the court’s approach to balancing the protection of privacy and confidentiality with the principles of fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

SACKVILLE J

If, however, such an argument is advanced, either on the basis of existing evidence or evidence yet to be adduced, it will be necessary to take account of s 135 of the Evidence Act. This provision confers a discretion on the Court to:‘refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might:(a)be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or(b)…; or(c)cause or result in undue waste of time.’Of course, should Seven seek to adopt this course other issues might also arise having regard to the stage of the trial that has been reached.CONCLUSION For the reasons I have given, the tender of Mr Salter’s report should be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1223 of 2002

BETWEEN:	SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED (ACN 052 816 789) FIRST APPLICANT C7 PTY LIMITED (ACN 082 901 442) SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	NEWS LIMITED (ACN 007 871 178) FIRST RESPONDENT SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED (ACN 069 799 640) SECOND RESPONDENT TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 069 279 027) THIRD RESPONDENT FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 068 671 938) FOURTH RESPONDENT TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) FIFTH RESPONDENT TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 069 279 072) SIXTH RESPONDENT PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED (ACN 009 071 167) SEVENTH RESPONDENT NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 685 407) EIGHTH RESPONDENT PREMIER MEDIA GROUP PTY LIMITED (ACN 065 445 418) NINTH RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 293) TWELFTH RESPONDENT NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 778 538) THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 082 088 962) FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION PTY LIMITED (ACN 069 008 797) FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT OPTUS VISION PTY LIMITED (ACN 066 518 821) SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT AUSTAR UNITED COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (ACN 087 695 707) SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT AUSTAR ENTERTAINMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 068 104 530) EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT IAN HUNTLY PHILIP NINETEENTH RESPONDENT NEWS PAY TV PTY LIMITED (ACN 085 095 487) TWENTIETH RESPONDENT PBL PAY TV PTY LIMITED (ACN 084 940 367) TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED (ACN 052 833 208) TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1223 of 2002