United Broadcasting International Pty Ltd v Turkplus Pty Ltd (No 2)

United Broadcasting International Pty Ltd and ATV Medya Hizmetleri A/S (collectively, the applicants) sought a default judgment against Turkplus Pty Ltd (the third respondent) for copyright infringement. The applicants argued that the third respondent had infringed their copyright by re-broadcasting the Turkish television channel “ATV AVRUPA” (ATV Channel) in Australia without their license. The third respondent disputed the existence of the alleged copyright infringement and any fiduciary duties. The court had to decide whether the third respondent was in default for failing to comply with the orders and attend the directions hearing. The court also had to determine if the applicants were entitled to a declaration of copyright infringement and an injunction against the third respondent.

The court found that the third respondent was in default for failing to comply with the orders and attend the directions hearing. The court noted that the third respondent's default, coupled with his apparent attitude to the defence of the proceeding, made it sufficiently clear that his defence would only be prosecuted with such expedition as the third respondent considered appropriate. The court also found that it was appropriate to grant some of the relief sought by the applicants, including a declaration of copyright infringement and an injunction against the third respondent. The court noted that the third respondent's default did not impede the applicants from obtaining the relief they sought. The court also noted that the third respondent's defence was not an impediment to the applicants obtaining the relief they sought.

The court ordered that the third respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the interlocutory application. The court also ordered that the third respondent be permanently restrained from infringing the applicants’ copyright in the ATV Channel by re-broadcasting the channel in Australia or communicating the channel to the public in Australia otherwise than by broadcasting it, without the applicants’ license. The court noted that the relief was appropriate and had sufficient practical utility in resolving the matter before the court.