South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd

Case [2000] FCA 98

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2000]
FCA 98

SOUTH SYDNEY DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LTD v NEWS LIMITED & ORS

N 1295 OF 1999

HELY J
7 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1295 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SOUTH SYDNEY DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

NEWS LIMITED (ACN 007 871 178)
FIRST RESPONDENT

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

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 292)
THIRD RESPONDENT

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

CANBERRA DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 008 568 634)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LTD
(ACN 001 869 405)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

CRONULLA-SUTHERLAND DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 002 692 186)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS LIMITED (ACN 003 363 228)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

ST GEORGE ILLAWARRA RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB PTY LIMITED (ACN 085 008 340)
NINTH RESPONDENT

BRISBANE BRONCOS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LIMITED
(ACN 010 769 025)
TENTH RESPONDENT

COWBOYS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL LIMITED
(ACN 060 382 961)
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
MELBOURNE STORM RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LIMITED
(ACN 081 369 468)
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

MANLY WARRINGAH DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 348 436)
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

NORTH SYDNEY DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 009 158)
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

EASTERN SUBURBS DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 002 687 416)
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

PENRITH DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 908 583)
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

PARRAMATTA DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LTD
(ACN 002 254 980)
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

WESTS TIGERS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL PTY LIMITED  (ACN 090 076 403)
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

AUCKLAND WARRIORS RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
(REGISTERED IN NZ NO 508 646)
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

MANLY-NORTHS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB PTY LIMITED (ACN 090 093 833)
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Grant leave to the applicant to file in Court an amended application.

2.Extend the time by which the third respondent is to file and serve its defence to the further amended statement of claim to 11 February 2000.

3.Direct the applicant to serve on the third respondent a document identifying the classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 18 February 2000.

4.Direct the third respondent to notify the applicant whether it is content to provide discovery of the classes of documents sought or whether it opposes providing discovery of the classes sought and, if there is opposition, to state the areas of the opposition and briefly state the grounds of the opposition by 25 February 2000.

5.Direct the applicant and the first and second respondents (the News respondents) to agree on categories for discovery by the News respondents by 14 February 2000.

6.Direct the News respondents to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents by 28 February 2000.

7.Direct the fourth respondent to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 28 February 2000.  This order is made in the expectation that agreement will be reached, although such agreement has not yet been reached.

8.Direct the third respondent to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 3 March 2000.

9.Direct the applicant to file and serve all further affidavits upon which it proposes to rely in opposition to the fourth respondent’s motion for security for costs by noon 14 February 2000.

10.Direct that the fourth respondent’s motion for security of costs be fixed for hearing at 9:15am on 16 February 2000.

11.Direct that the proceedings be listed for further directions on 11 February 2000.

12.Grant liberty to relist the proceedings on two days’ notice.

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

N 1295 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SOUTH SYDNEY DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

NEWS LIMITED (ACN 007 871 178)
FIRST RESPONDENT

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

AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 292)
THIRD RESPONDENT

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

CANBERRA DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 008 568 634)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LTD
(ACN 001 869 405)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

CRONULLA-SUTHERLAND DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 002 692 186)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS LIMITED (ACN 003 363 228)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

ST GEORGE ILLAWARRA RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB PTY LIMITED (ACN 085 008 340)
NINTH RESPONDENT

BRISBANE BRONCOS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LIMITED
(ACN 010 769 025)
TENTH RESPONDENT

COWBOYS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL LIMITED
(ACN 060 382 961)
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
MELBOURNE STORM RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LIMITED
(ACN 081 369 468)
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

MANLY WARRINGAH DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 348 436)
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

NORTH SYDNEY DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 009 158)
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

EASTERN SUBURBS DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 002 687 416)
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

PENRITH DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 003 908 583)
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

PARRAMATTA DISTRICT RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LTD
(ACN 002 254 980)
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

WESTS TIGERS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL PTY LIMITED  (ACN 090 076 403)
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

AUCKLAND WARRIORS RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
(REGISTERED IN NZ NO 508 646)
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

MANLY-NORTHS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB PTY LIMITED (ACN 090 093 833)
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

7 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 3 December 1999 I gave judgment in which I dismissed a notice of motion brought by South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Limited (“Souths”) seeking interlocutory relief in relation to the National Rugby League (“NRL”) competition in the year 2000.  I reserved the question of costs until today and indicated that I would either determine the question of costs myself or consider whether the costs issue should be reserved for determination by the trial judge.

  2. Mr Scheib, who appeared for Souths, accepted that if the costs were to be determined today, subject to one possible qualification, it would be appropriate for Souths to be ordered to pay the costs because the issue for determination was whether there should be interlocutory relief and Souths failed upon that issue.

  3. However, Mr Scheib submits that I should reserve the question of costs for determination by the trial judge for two reasons.  Firstly, because of the public interest factors which are associated with claims instituted under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and secondly, because the trial judge will have a clearer focus from which to determine the costs issue.

  4. As matters currently stand, it is not clear whether I will or will not be the trial judge, however, it seems to me that the trial judge will be in no better position that I am to determine the question of costs.  Indeed, a trial judge may be in a more disadvantageous position in relation to the determination of that issue.

  5. I say that essentially for three reasons.  First, Souths failed in its claim for interlocutory relief, not because it had not established that there was a serious question to be tried, but because of the balance of convenience factors.  Whether Souths should be included in the year 2000 competition will not be an issue litigated before the trial judge and balance of convenience considerations will not figure at the trial.

  6. Second, Souths has amended its statement of claim so as to reformulate to some extent the issues which arise under the TPA. Third, even though I found that there was a serious question to be tried on an issue arising under the TPA, I did find that many other elements of Souths’ claims did not give rise to triable issues.

  7. Whilst it is true that public interest considerations figure largely in trade practices claims, I do not think that they really bear upon the question of costs. All that the public interest factors indicate is that the entire community has an interest in the maintenance of a competitive environment which the TPA is designed to secure.

  8. When account is taken of all of these factors I think that it is appropriate that I should determine the question of costs now, rather than reserving it for consideration by a trial judge.  As I said, subject to one item, Mr Scheib accepts that if the issue of costs is to be determined, an appropriate order is that Souths should pay the respondents' costs of the notice of motion.

  9. The one matter which Mr Scheib reserved was whether an order should be made in relation to all of the respondents' costs or whether there should only be a single set of costs so far as the first, second and third respondents are concerned.  That issue arises because the first and second respondents on the one hand, and the third respondent on the other hand, are partners in the fourth respondent.

  10. When this matter was last heard before me on 13 December 1999 I gave directions that if there was to be a submission that there should be one set of costs between the first four respondents, notification to that effect should be given prior to the hearing today, together with some particularisation of the basis upon which the submission was to be put.  That was not done and the issue of confining the costs orders was raised by Mr Scheib for the first time in his submissions in reply.

  11. Notwithstanding these procedural irregularities, I think I should entertain his submission.  I do, however, find that there is force in the respondents’ submissions that this was a case where it was difficult to tell in advance whether there would be complete community of interest between the affected respondents, particularly as the matter was brought on quickly and as a matter of urgency.

  12. In those circumstances I am not prepared to place any limitation on the costs order.  The order which I will make is simply that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the notice of motion for interlocutory relief.

  13. I make order 2 in accordance with the short minutes of order.  I make order 3.  I make order 4.  I make order 5.  I make order 6.  I make order 7, substituting 28 February for 21 February.  I make order 8 substituting 28 February for 14 February and I simply note that order 8 is made in the expectation that agreement will be reached but that in fact agreement has not yet been reached.  I make order 9.  I will simply direct that the hearing of the motion for security for costs be fixed for hearing at 9.15 am on 16 February 2000.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.

Associate:

Dated:  15 February 2000

Counsel for the Applicant: M Scheib
Solicitor for the Applicant: Nicholas G Pappas & Co
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: J Campbell QC
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Allan Allan & Hemsley
Counsel for the Third Respondent: I Pike
Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Love Colin W & Co
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: J E Marshall
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Respondents: A P Coleman
Solicitor for the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Respondents: Henry Davis York
Date of Hearing: 7 February 2000
Date of Judgment: 7 February 2000
Details
AGLC
South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2000] FCA 98
Case
[2000] FCA 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd versus News Ltd and others was heard. The dispute arose from a claim by the South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd against News Limited and several other respondents, regarding allegations of defamation and misuse of confidential information. The club sought various forms of relief, including damages, an injunction, and access to certain documents. The case involved a complex web of legal issues, primarily centred around the disclosure of documents and the setting of security for costs. The court was required to decide on applications for leave to amend pleadings, the extension of time limits for filing defences, and the conduct of discovery processes among the parties.

The court considered the need for the South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd to file an amended application and granted leave for this purpose. It also extended the deadline for the third respondent to file and serve its defence to the further amended statement of claim. The court emphasised the importance of timely and orderly discovery of documents, directing the parties to identify and agree upon classes of documents for informal discovery. It set specific deadlines for these processes, aiming to ensure that the litigation proceeded efficiently. The court further addressed the issue of security for costs, setting a hearing date for a motion by the fourth respondent and directing the filing of further affidavits by a specified date.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for procedural fairness and efficiency in the litigation process. By setting clear deadlines and directions for the parties, the court aimed to facilitate the orderly progression of the case. The court's orders reflect a careful balance between the rights of the parties to access necessary documents and the need to manage the litigation process within a reasonable timeframe. The final orders granted leave for amendments, extended time limits, set specific deadlines for document discovery, and scheduled the hearing for the motion for security of costs. The proceedings were listed for further directions, and the court granted liberty to relist on two days' notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to the applicant to file in Court an amended application.

2. Extend the time by which the third respondent is to file and serve its defence to the further amended statement of claim to 11 February 2000.

3. Direct the applicant to serve on the third respondent a document identifying the classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 18 February 2000.

4. Direct the third respondent to notify the applicant whether it is content to provide discovery of the classes of documents sought or whether it opposes providing discovery of the classes sought and, if there is opposition, to state the areas of the opposition and briefly state the grounds of the opposition by 25 February 2000.

5. Direct the applicant and the first and second respondents (the News respondents) to agree on categories for discovery by the News respondents by 14 February 2000.

6. Direct the News respondents to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents by 28 February 2000.

7. Direct the fourth respondent to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 28 February 2000. This order is made in the expectation that agreement will be reached, although such agreement has not yet been reached.

8. Direct the third respondent to provide the applicant with informal discovery of the agreed classes of documents in relation to which the applicant seeks discovery by 3 March 2000.

9. Direct the applicant to file and serve all further affidavits upon which it proposes to rely in opposition to the fourth respondent’s motion for security for costs by noon 14 February 2000.

10. Direct that the fourth respondent’s motion for security of costs be fixed for hearing at 9:15am on 16 February 2000.

11. Direct that the proceedings be listed for further directions on 11 February 2000.

12. Grant liberty to relist the proceedings on two days’ notice.

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

HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.