Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment & Ors

[2004] HCATrans 313

[2004] HCATrans 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S468 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

EDDY STEVENS

Applicant

and

KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT

First Respondent

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT EUROPE LIMITED

Second Respondent

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

Directions

GUMMOW J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 20 AUGUST 2004, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR J.V. NICHOLAS, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear with MR C. DIMITRIADIS for the appellant.  (instructed by Gadens Lawyers)

MR D.K. CATTERNS, QC:   May it please the Court, I appear with MR R. COBDEN for the respondents.  (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron)

MR S.T. WHITE:   If it please the Court, I appear for the ACCC.  (instructed by the ACCC)

HIS HONOUR:   What is the ACCC’s attitude?

MR WHITE:   Your Honour, we understood that today was to be directed towards representation from Mr Stevens.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, that has been achieved with the presence of Mr Nicholas and Mr Dimitriadis.

MR WHITE:   It does appear so, yes, your Honour.  The ACCC’s instructions therefore are that they would like an opportunity to consider whether an application should be made to appear as amicus curiae on the appeal.

HIS HONOUR:   I think that is best probably made after you have seen the written submissions, whether you want to say something that neither side is saying that we should hear.

MR WHITE:   Yes, and I think that is about the limit of the Commission’s view at the moment.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  That seems right, does it not, gentlemen?

MR CATTERNS:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   So if the ACCC on consideration wishes to make an application of that sort, it should do so after you have seen the written submissions from the other parties and it is their understanding that they will supply them to you.

MR WHITE:   Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you, Mr White.  There is nothing else that needs to be done, is there, gentlemen?

MR CATTERNS:   Not from our point of view, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I suppose you have seen the transcript of the special leave application, Mr Nicholas?

MR NICHOLAS:   Yes, your Honour, I have.

HIS HONOUR:   I made directions then as to the reuse of the appeal books from the Full Court.

MR NICHOLAS:   Yes, your Honour.  We understood that the question of the date may come up today, your Honour, and of course the convenience of the Court is paramount, I understand that.  Mr Dimitriadis and I have taken the brief in the circumstances of what was said on the last occasion.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I understand.

MR NICHOLAS:   While we will fit in with the Court, if so required, we wondered whether we could receive slightly more accommodation than perhaps is usually granted, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I think that is right, is it not, Mr Catterns?

MR CATTERNS:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   It is in everyone’s interests to have senior counsel on both sides.

MR CATTERNS:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, you will both have that accommodation.

MR NICHOLAS:   Thank you, your Honour.

MR CATTERNS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   There is nothing more I need to do except reserve costs of this morning’s costs in the appeal, I suppose.  Yes, thank you, gentlemen. 

There is a decision that you may be familiar with, but you may not be.  It is a decision of Sony v Ball of Mr Justice Laddie in the Chancery Division. The electronic citation is [2004] EWHC 1738. It deals with the English comparable legislation, one might say.

MR CATTERNS:   Yes, your Honour, thank you.  Mr Cobden has given me a copy of that.

HIS HONOUR:   It is worth a look at, I think.  Yes, thank you.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED