Legal Research
Cases
World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish

World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish

Link copied

Case Copied 2 November 1977 128 min read

Contents

On this page

Prac t i ces -

I n t e r u i i n j u n c t i o n

C'OildUCt

a l leged

t o be m.~slead~.ng

and deceptive - Pr jnc ip les appl icable

t o

inter im

Injunct ions.

Trade

Pract ices

Act

1974,

ss.52, 53(c)

and SU(2).

Sydncy , 2nd. Iaovenber , 1 977

Appellant

(Respondent)

A I s T D :

ROBERT

Jl!FES

Pl!RISH

Respondent

(Applicanz)

C O W 4 :

Eown C . J . ,

Franki and. Erennan JJ.

2nd November, 1977

G o m r T c J a : This i s an appeal from the decislon and orders of a single Judge of t h i s Cou1.t g ran t ing an interrcl

lnjunc'tlon. The proceedlngs

were

comnenccb. by Ylr. Robert

James ParlsJl.

obtained an o r d e r n i s i c a l l m g

upon

World

Series Cricket Pty. Limited

t o show

cause why

c e r t s i n

in junc t iocs s e t f o r t h i n €lve numbered

paragraphs

should

not be granted against

it.

the reLurn of t he o rde r ,

which v a s f i x e d f o r the next day, the

matter WIZS d e a l t

with by the Judge below oli

an in t e r locu to ry basis.

The background

I a c t s a r e n o t

dispute .

Ur.	Pans11 j s -the Chairman of the kustrnlla? Crjcket Eoard.

which i s an adminis t ra t lve

body -Lhat €or many years has

included anongst

i ts functions

the orLanlsa t lon

r ep resen ta t lve

cricket matches

be 1;ween

Aus

tralia apd other countries. These

matches are

h o v n as

t e s t matches

and

the c r i cke t p l ayed in

- *

those matches

is linown as t e s t

c r i c k e t .

The Aus t ra l ian

Cricket

Board

a p p o l n t s s e l e c t o r s t o s e l e c t c r i c k e t e r s t o

represent Aus t ra l ia .

The

Board

i s a

member

of -&e

In t e rna t lona l

Cricket Conference which

i s an assoc ia t ion

whose members a r e

the governing boerds

of varlous c r l cke t ing countries.

Internatj-onal crlclcet

gene ra l ly con t ro l l ed

t h e l n t d n e t l m i l

Crlclret Conlerence,

but when

Aus t r a l i a p l ays

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 World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish 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: [1977] FCA 77
Decision Date: 2 Nov 1977

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal by World Series Cricket Pty Ltd (the appellant) against an interim injunction granted by a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia (the respondent). The respondent, Mr. Robert James Parish, is the Chairman of the Australian Cricket Board, a body responsible for organising international cricket matches between Australia and other countries. The appeal was based on the grounds that the learned Judge failed to recognise and apply the principles guiding the exercise of the court's discretion under s.80(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, that the learned Judge made various errors of law and fact, and that the form of some of the orders made was inappropriate. The primary issue was whether the learned Judge correctly exercised his discretion in granting the interim injunction. The court examined the principles applicable to interlocutory injunctions, which were developed in equity but have been adapted for different jurisdictions. In cases involving the protection of consumers, the court may grant an injunction if it is desirable to do so. The court found that Mr. Parish had made out a prima facie case that the appellant's advertisement would be likely to mislead a significant section of the public into believing that the "Super Tests" were organised by the Australian Cricket Board. The court also considered the balance of convenience, noting that the appellant had suffered some injury due to the injunction, but the potential damage to the public if the injunction was not granted was irreparable. The court concluded that it was appropriate to grant an interim injunction, subject to an appropriate undertaking as to damages by Mr. Parish. The court proposed to substitute the orders made by the learned Judge with new orders that the appellant be restrained from referring to cricket matches organised by it as "Tests" or "Test Series" or "Super Tests" without clearly distinguishing those matches from matches controlled by the Australian Cricket Board or the International Cricket Conference, and from referring to any teams of cricket players in matches organised by it as "The Australian Team" or "Australia" without clearly distinguishing the team from any team selected or controlled by the Australian Cricket Board.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the orders made by the learned Judge and grant an interim injunction, subject to an appropriate undertaking as to damages, restraining World Series Cricket Pty Ltd from engaging in the specified conduct. The costs of the proceedings before the single Judge and of this appeal were to be costs in the cause, and liberty was reserved to either party to apply on two days' notice.

Orders