Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited v Smith - [2004] FCA 1254

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited v Smith [2004] FCA 1254
SONY ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED & ORS v CHRISTOPHER FRASER SMITH & ORS
N 944 of 2002
JACOBSON J
21 SEPTEMBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 944 of 2002

BETWEEN:

SONY ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(ACN 000 033 581)
FIRST APPLICANT

UNIVERSAL MUSIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 000 158 592)
SECOND APPLICANT

CENTRAL STATION RECORDS & TAPES PTY LTD
(ACN 005 707 997)
THIRD APPLICANT

and the applicants listed on the attached schedule

AND:

CHRISTOPHER FRASER SMITH
also known as CHRIS KROSS
also known as KRIS KROSS
FIRST RESPONDENT

TOWER RECORDS PTY LTD
(ACN 084 046 784)
T/A SLAMM DISTRIBUTION
SECOND RESPONDENT

PETER FERRIS
also known as PEEWEEFERRRIS
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 SEPTEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The motion filed on 20 September 2004 be dismissed.
2.The first, second and fifth respondents to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (GERMANY) GMBH
FOURTH APPLICANT

MEDIA RECORDS SRL
FIFTH APPLICANT

COMBINED FORCES RECORDS BV
SIXTH APPLICANT

TRACID TRAXX GMBH
SEVENTH APPLICANT

DANCE STREET GMBH
EIGHTH APPLICANT

KONTOR RECORDS GMBH
NINTH APPLICANT

ALPHABET CITY GMBH
TENTH APPLICANT

NERVOUS INC
ELEVENTH APPLICANT

WYZE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
TWELFTH APPLICANT

TOCO AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 008 706 576)
THIRTEENTH APPLICANT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 944 of 2002

BETWEEN:

SONY ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(ACN 000 033 581)
FIRST APPLICANT

UNIVERSAL MUSIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 000 158 592)
SECOND APPLICANT

CENTRAL STATION RECORDS & TAPES PTY LTD
(ACN 005 707 997)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

CHRISTOPHER FRASER SMITH
also known as CHRIS KROSS
also known as KRIS KROSS
FIRST RESPONDENT

TOWER RECORDS PTY LTD (ACN 084 046 784)
T/A SLAMM DISTRIBUTION
SECOND RESPONDENT

PETER FERRIS also known as PEEWEEFERRRIS
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

21 SEPTEMBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION

The applicants are recording companies which control, either as owner or as exclusive licensee, the copyright in the sound recording in 17 tracks which are the subject of these proceedings. The applicants claim declarations, injunctive and other relief against the first, second and fifth respondents ("the remaining respondents") for alleged infringement of their copyright in the sound recordings.
The proceedings were commenced on 11 September 2002 and on 20 May 2004 were listed for hearing before me today. Three days were fixed for the hearing.
However, late yesterday afternoon the remaining respondents filed a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings. I heard the adjournment application this morning. The applicants in the proceedings opposed the adjournment.
This is the second application for an adjournment made by the remaining respondents. The first was made on Thursday, 16 September 2004. I dismissed it, essentially because there was no evidence filed to support it.

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 Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited v Smith 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: [2004] FCA 1254
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited, the applicant, filed a motion against Smith, the first respondent, and several other parties, seeking relief in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant claimed that the first respondent had engaged in copyright infringement by distributing unauthorised copies of various motion pictures owned by Sony. The motion sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the first respondent from continuing to distribute these unauthorised copies.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement and whether an interlocutory injunction was warranted. The court had to determine if Sony had ownership of the copyright in the motion pictures, if the first respondent had indeed infringed those copyrights by distributing unauthorised copies, and if an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The court also had to consider the balance of convenience between the parties, including the potential harm to Sony if the injunction was not granted.

In dismissing the motion, the court found that Sony had not made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court held that Sony had not provided sufficient evidence to establish ownership of the copyrights in question or that the first respondent had indeed infringed those copyrights. Additionally, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting an interlocutory injunction. Consequently, the court dismissed the motion and ordered the first, second, and fifth respondents to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion filed on 20 September 2004 be dismissed.

2. The first, second and fifth respondents to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 944 of 2002

BETWEEN:	SONY ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (ACN 000 033 581) FIRST APPLICANT UNIVERSAL MUSIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 158 592) SECOND APPLICANT CENTRAL STATION RECORDS & TAPES PTY LTD (ACN 005 707 997) THIRD APPLICANT and the applicants listed on the attached schedule
AND:	CHRISTOPHER FRASER SMITH also known as CHRIS KROSS also known as KRIS KROSS FIRST RESPONDENT TOWER RECORDS PTY LTD (ACN 084 046 784) T/A SLAMM DISTRIBUTION SECOND RESPONDENT PETER FERRIS also known as PEEWEEFERRRIS FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 SEPTEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 944 of 2002

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	21 SEPTEMBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY