Sky Channel Marketing Pty Limited v Mr David Hall in his capacity as chairman of the Australian Jockey Club and 2 Ors; Sky Channel Pty Limited v Austar Entertainment Pty Limited and Thoroughvision Pty Limited

The case involved Sky Channel Marketing and Sky Channel Pty Limited, who were the plaintiffs, and Mr David Hall, Austar Entertainment Pty Limited, and Thoroughvision Pty Limited, who were the defendants. The dispute revolved around the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proceedings, which included claims for damages for breach of contract, and passing off. The matter was initially heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, but the defendants sought to have it transferred to the Federal Court on the basis of cross-vesting jurisdiction. The plaintiffs opposed the transfer, arguing that the matter did not fall within the special federal matters outlined in the Cross-vesting legislation.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the proceedings fell within the category of special federal matters, specifically those that involve a question of law arising in the course of a proceeding in which a claim is made for damages for an infringement of a copyright, or a question of law arising in the course of a proceeding in which a claim is made for damages for breach of a registered trade mark, or a question of law arising in the course of a proceeding in which a claim is made for passing off. The court needed to determine whether the proceedings involved a sufficient connection to these special federal matters to warrant transfer to the Federal Court.

In its judgment, the court held that the proceedings did not fall within the special federal matters category. The court found that the primary relief sought by the plaintiffs was for damages for breach of contract and passing off, and not for infringement of copyright or trade mark. While the court acknowledged that some of the claims might involve questions of law, they were not of the kind specified in the Cross-vesting legislation. The court concluded that there were no special reasons for the Supreme Court to transfer the matter to the Federal Court. The opposition to the transfer was therefore upheld.

The court ordered that the application to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Court be dismissed. The matter was to remain in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the original proceedings were being heard. The plaintiffs were awarded costs of the application.