|Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Endemol Australia Pty Ltd (FCA) - injunction - copyright - Seven denied injunction restraining Nine from broadcasting or communicating episodes of reality television program
|Lanka Graphite Ltd (formerly Viculus Ltd) (FCA) - corporations - extension of time of compliance with bid condition - declaration bid condition satisfied
|Woodlawn Capital Pty Ltd v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (NSWCA) - stay - investment management agreement - conditional stay of execution of judgment granted
|Drake v Wight & Strickland Lawyers (NSWSC) - summary dismissal - trusts and trustees - advocates’ immunity - amended statement of claim and proceedings dismissed
|In the Estate of Louis Matthews (deceased) (SASC) - Wills and estates - succession - Registrar directed to accept combined proceedings
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Endemol Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 800
Federal Court of Australia
Injunction - copyright - Seven broadcast reality television show My Kitchen Rules - Seven alleged that by producing and broadcasting episodes of television show, Hotplate, Nine was infringing Seven’s copyright in various original literary and dramatic works - Seven sought interlocutory injunction restraining Nine from broadcasting or otherwise communicating any further episodes of Hotplate until determination of proceeding - held: Court satisfied Seven had reasonably arguable case but Court did not accept it had a strong prima facie case, which was important consideration when considering balance of convenience - balance of risk of injustice by granting or withholding interlocutory relief weighed in Nine’s favour - application for interlocutory relief dismissed.
|Lanka Graphite Ltd (formerly Viculus Ltd)  FCA 798
Federal Court of Australia
Corporations - plaintiff (Viculus) sought order under s1332(4)(d) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) extending time provided for it to satisfy bid condition of its takeover bid for company (Euro) and declaration that bid condition satisfied - circumstances leading to need for extension of time - far reaching consequences if takeover bid void - Euro’s support of takeover bid and application - no substantial injustice - absence of opposition by ASIC - held: Court had power under s1322(4)(d) to extend time limit for compliance with bid condition - Court satisfied that order and declaration sought should be made.
|Woodlawn Capital Pty Ltd v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd  NSWCA 227
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Stay - applicant funds manager appealed against judgment entered for in sum of $4,893,115.11 - sum principally represented pre-judgment interest payable pursuant to Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) in respect of sums found to be owed to defendant client - applicant sought stay of execution - principal issue on appeal was proper construction of clause of Investment Management Agreement - question was whether clause released applicant from liability for payment of pre-judgment interest - fair balance of rights of parties - held: stay should be ordered on basis of possibility that applicant may be forced into liquidation should it not pay judgment sum, or at least amount claimed in statutory demand - stay subject to conditions granted.
|Drake v Wight & Strickland Lawyers  NSWSC 1090
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Summary dismissal - advocates’ immunity - trusts and trustees - bankruptcy - claim arising from retainer entered into between parties for provision of legal services in respect of claim made against plaintiffs - defendant sought orders that amended statement of claim be dismissed pursuant to r13.4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
|In the Estate of Louis Matthews (deceased)  SASC 112
Supreme Court of South Australia
Succession - family provision - application to combine proceedings in civil and testamentary causes jurisdictions of Court - deceased died in 2014 - deceased left Will - probate in respect of Will granted - plaintiff was deceased’s mother who sought order pronouncing against validity of Will and an order revoking grant - alternatively alternative, she seeks provision out of estate pursuant to Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) - Registrar of Probates referred matter to Court pursuant to r20(1) Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) - significant risk of multiplicity of proceedings - held: in cases such as present, where there was significant risk of multiplicity of proceedings, separation of jurisdictions must give way to terms of s27 Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) Court made order directing Registrar to accept proceedings for action for revocation combined with claim pursuant to Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA).