mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: Walter v Steinkopff [1892] 3 Ch 489
Outcome: cited
In the alternative, Nine characterises the late changes as divorced from and separate to the act of revising the underlying copyright work but as attracting their own copyright over a week-long period. While that information is a relatively small quantitative part of the totality of information, it is qualitatively important for Nine. As already noted, such information may be withheld from the Weekly Schedule for competitive reasons. However, Ice does not access the Late Change Notices. Ice refers to the information as to late changes when it accesses the Aggregated Guides. The Late Change Notice is no part of the Weekly Schedule. It is merely a notice or, over the week, a series of notices. If there is no copyright in news as such but only in the form in which it is expressed ( Walter v Steinkopff [1892] 3 Ch 489), it follows that there is no copyright in the subject matter of the Late Change Notices. Further, the Late Change Notices are not themselves incorporated into the Aggregated Guides but only the information that they contain. 73 A simple visual comparison of the Yahoo7 Guide and the YourTV Guide with the Weekly Schedule in Excel and text formats confirms that there are significant differences of "look, feel, and content" between those guides and the Weekly Schedule. For example: &#8226; The information in the Yahoo7 Guide and YourTV Guide is not selected, expressed or arranged in a broadcast week; it is in daily format. &#8226; The time and title information is arranged in a horizontal grid rather than vertical columns. The synopses and some of the additional program information, although present, is not set out in the grid. That information only becomes visible when selected in a pop-up window. &#8226; A "day" is expressed as a calendar day rather than from 6:00 am to 5:59 am the next day. &#8226; Program finish times, duration and genre are displayed in the Yahoo7 Guide and the YourTV Guide. This information, save for the genre of movies, is not included in the Weekly Schedule. &#8226; The YourTV Guide discloses the program country and links to official program and related websites. &#8226; The YourTV Guide discloses, where applicable, the program cast. &#8226; Closed captions, widescreen and high definition are not expressed by abbreviations in the YourTV Guide and the Yahoo7 Guide. 74 It would seem that the synopses included in the Weekly Schedule are in most cases incorporated in substantially the same or abbreviated form in the Aggregated Guides. A comparison of the program synopses as included in (relevantly) the Weekly Schedule, the YourTV Guide, the Yahoo7 Guide and OurGuide for a randomly selected day (4 October 2006) showed that OurGuide had the same synopses as the Weekly Schedule (save for two shortened synopses). HWW made minor edits to the synopses provided by Nine, which were reflected in the YourTV Guide and two other guides sourced from HWW, including the Yahoo7 Guide.
Case: Waterlow Directories Ltd v Reed Information Services Ltd (1990) 20 IPR 69
Outcome: cited
Infringement is not necessarily avoided where material is simply checked with the data subject for verification or where the arrangement is different ( Waterlow Publishers Ltd v Rose (1989) 17 IPR 493 cited in Desktop at [346] per Sackville J). However, the concept that the taking of a single line of a directory for the purpose of saving labour and trouble amounts to an infringement was a ' famous but excessive admonition ' ( Desktop at [405] per Sackville J referring to Kelly at 701 2 per Sir W Page Wood VC). The fact that copyright may exist in a compilation does not mean that it exists in the individual facts referred to therein ( Victoria Park at 498 per Latham CJ and at 511 per Dixon J). The taking of line of a directory will not be sufficient for infringement if it does not constitute a substantial part (s 14(1) of the Act; Waterlow Directories Ltd v Reed Information Services Ltd (1990) 20 IPR 69 per Aldous J at 73, cited in Desktop at [347] per Sackville J). However, copyright in a compilation may be infringed by appropriating ' an undue amount of the material, although the language employed be different or the order of the material be altered ' (Laddie H, Prescott P, Vitoria M, Speck A and Lane L, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (3 rd ed, 2000) at paras 3.88 and 3.90, cited in Desktop at [375] per Sackville J).
Case: Waterlow Publishers Ltd v Rose (1989) 17 IPR 493
Outcome: cited
Infringement is not necessarily avoided where material is simply checked with the data subject for verification or where the arrangement is different ( Waterlow Publishers Ltd v Rose (1989) 17 IPR 493 cited in Desktop at [346] per Sackville J). However, the concept that the taking of a single line of a directory for the purpose of saving labour and trouble amounts to an infringement was a ' famous but excessive admonition ' ( Desktop at [405] per Sackville J referring to Kelly at 701 2 per Sir W Page Wood VC). The fact that copyright may exist in a compilation does not mean that it exists in the individual facts referred to therein ( Victoria Park at 498 per Latham CJ and at 511 per Dixon J). The taking of line of a directory will not be sufficient for infringement if it does not constitute a substantial part (s 14(1) of the Act; Waterlow Directories Ltd v Reed Information Services Ltd (1990) 20 IPR 69 per Aldous J at 73, cited in Desktop at [347] per Sackville J). However, copyright in a compilation may be infringed by appropriating ' an undue amount of the material, although the language employed be different or the order of the material be altered ' (Laddie H, Prescott P, Vitoria M, Speck A and Lane L, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (3 rd ed, 2000) at paras 3.88 and 3.90, cited in Desktop at [375] per Sackville J).
Case: Townsend Controls Pty Ltd v Gilead (1989) 14 IPR 443
Outcome: cited
The prerequisite in s 202(1) is that a person is threatened with an action or proceeding. This refers to a proceeding not yet brought. "Threat" imports an intention to bring an action or ' an indication of probable evil to come ' ( Macquarie Dictionary (4th ed, 2005)). That is the commencement of the proceedings threatened. Once the proceedings have been commenced, the threat to commence those proceedings has ceased. The link between the threat and the commencement of legal proceedings and the need for a statutory remedy in the context of the comparable s 121 of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) (then in force) was commented upon by von Doussa J in Townsend Controls Pty Ltd v Gilead (1989) 14 IPR 443 at 448. His Honour said that the purpose of the section was to provide a statutory remedy where a person makes a threat instead of enforcing the claimed monopoly by instituting proceedings for infringement.
Case: Jones v Southall &amp; Bourke Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 539
Outcome: cited
first purported Ground of Appeal does not address any error said to have been committed by the Federal Magistrate. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. The relevant jurisdiction is its appellate jurisdiction in respect to a decision of a Federal Magistrate. Moreover, the ground is misconceived. Neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor this Court on appeal can review a decision of the Tribunal simply upon the basis that it is said to be not " fair ". The relevant jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is that conferred by s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which provides as follows: Subject to this section, the Federal Magistrates Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution . The jurisdiction under s 75(v) does not extend to a consideration of the factual merits of a decision and a consideration as to whether it is " fair " or " unfair ." The relevant appellate jurisdiction of this Court is that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and that jurisdiction does not extend beyond that conferred upon the Federal Magistrate. Relying upon an earlier decision of Kenny J, Her Honour Justice Crennan in Jones v Southall &amp; Bourke Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 539 summarised the nature of such an appeal to this Court as follows: [2] An appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court under s 24(1)(d) of the FCA Act is neither a hearing de novo nor an appeal in the strict sense, but is an appeal by way of re-hearing. As stated by Kenny J in Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 429 at [4]: On an appeal by way of re-hearing, the powers of an appellate court are exercisable only if the appellant can demonstrate that, having regard to the evidence before the appellate court, the judgment under appeal is a consequence of some legal, factual, or discretionary error: see Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 ; (2000) 173 ALR 648 at 653 54 per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17 ; (2001) 178 ALR 421 , at 439 per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J; and Coal &amp; Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 ; (2000) 174 ALR 585 at 590 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ. See also: Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702 at [3] per Marshall J; WAJR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 106 at [18] , [2004] FCA 106 ; 204 ALR 624 at 628 to 629 per French J (as His Honour then was); NADZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 975 at [31] per Graham J; MZWDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 497 at [29] per Young J. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been conferred for the purpose of correction of any error in the decision of a Federal Magistrate, not to correct error on the part of the Tribunal.
Case: Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702
Outcome: cited
first purported Ground of Appeal does not address any error said to have been committed by the Federal Magistrate. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. The relevant jurisdiction is its appellate jurisdiction in respect to a decision of a Federal Magistrate. Moreover, the ground is misconceived. Neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor this Court on appeal can review a decision of the Tribunal simply upon the basis that it is said to be not " fair ". The relevant jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is that conferred by s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which provides as follows: Subject to this section, the Federal Magistrates Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution . The jurisdiction under s 75(v) does not extend to a consideration of the factual merits of a decision and a consideration as to whether it is " fair " or " unfair ." The relevant appellate jurisdiction of this Court is that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and that jurisdiction does not extend beyond that conferred upon the Federal Magistrate. Relying upon an earlier decision of Kenny J, Her Honour Justice Crennan in Jones v Southall &amp; Bourke Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 539 summarised the nature of such an appeal to this Court as follows: [2] An appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court under s 24(1)(d) of the FCA Act is neither a hearing de novo nor an appeal in the strict sense, but is an appeal by way of re-hearing. As stated by Kenny J in Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 429 at [4]: On an appeal by way of re-hearing, the powers of an appellate court are exercisable only if the appellant can demonstrate that, having regard to the evidence before the appellate court, the judgment under appeal is a consequence of some legal, factual, or discretionary error: see Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 ; (2000) 173 ALR 648 at 653 54 per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17 ; (2001) 178 ALR 421 , at 439 per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J; and Coal &amp; Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 ; (2000) 174 ALR 585 at 590 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ. See also: Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702 at [3] per Marshall J; WAJR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 106 at [18] , [2004] FCA 106 ; 204 ALR 624 at 628 to 629 per French J (as His Honour then was); NADZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 975 at [31] per Graham J; MZWDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 497 at [29] per Young J. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been conferred for the purpose of correction of any error in the decision of a Federal Magistrate, not to correct error on the part of the Tribunal.
Case: MZWDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 497
Outcome: cited
first purported Ground of Appeal does not address any error said to have been committed by the Federal Magistrate. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. The relevant jurisdiction is its appellate jurisdiction in respect to a decision of a Federal Magistrate. Moreover, the ground is misconceived. Neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor this Court on appeal can review a decision of the Tribunal simply upon the basis that it is said to be not " fair ". The relevant jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is that conferred by s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which provides as follows: Subject to this section, the Federal Magistrates Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution . The jurisdiction under s 75(v) does not extend to a consideration of the factual merits of a decision and a consideration as to whether it is " fair " or " unfair ." The relevant appellate jurisdiction of this Court is that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and that jurisdiction does not extend beyond that conferred upon the Federal Magistrate. Relying upon an earlier decision of Kenny J, Her Honour Justice Crennan in Jones v Southall &amp; Bourke Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 539 summarised the nature of such an appeal to this Court as follows: [2] An appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court under s 24(1)(d) of the FCA Act is neither a hearing de novo nor an appeal in the strict sense, but is an appeal by way of re-hearing. As stated by Kenny J in Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 429 at [4]: On an appeal by way of re-hearing, the powers of an appellate court are exercisable only if the appellant can demonstrate that, having regard to the evidence before the appellate court, the judgment under appeal is a consequence of some legal, factual, or discretionary error: see Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 ; (2000) 173 ALR 648 at 653 54 per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17 ; (2001) 178 ALR 421 , at 439 per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J; and Coal &amp; Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 ; (2000) 174 ALR 585 at 590 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ. See also: Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702 at [3] per Marshall J; WAJR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 106 at [18] , [2004] FCA 106 ; 204 ALR 624 at 628 to 629 per French J (as His Honour then was); NADZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 975 at [31] per Graham J; MZWDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 497 at [29] per Young J. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been conferred for the purpose of correction of any error in the decision of a Federal Magistrate, not to correct error on the part of the Tribunal.
Case: NADZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 975
Outcome: cited
first purported Ground of Appeal does not address any error said to have been committed by the Federal Magistrate. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. The relevant jurisdiction is its appellate jurisdiction in respect to a decision of a Federal Magistrate. Moreover, the ground is misconceived. Neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor this Court on appeal can review a decision of the Tribunal simply upon the basis that it is said to be not " fair ". The relevant jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is that conferred by s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which provides as follows: Subject to this section, the Federal Magistrates Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution . The jurisdiction under s 75(v) does not extend to a consideration of the factual merits of a decision and a consideration as to whether it is " fair " or " unfair ." The relevant appellate jurisdiction of this Court is that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and that jurisdiction does not extend beyond that conferred upon the Federal Magistrate. Relying upon an earlier decision of Kenny J, Her Honour Justice Crennan in Jones v Southall &amp; Bourke Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 539 summarised the nature of such an appeal to this Court as follows: [2] An appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court under s 24(1)(d) of the FCA Act is neither a hearing de novo nor an appeal in the strict sense, but is an appeal by way of re-hearing. As stated by Kenny J in Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 429 at [4]: On an appeal by way of re-hearing, the powers of an appellate court are exercisable only if the appellant can demonstrate that, having regard to the evidence before the appellate court, the judgment under appeal is a consequence of some legal, factual, or discretionary error: see Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 ; (2000) 173 ALR 648 at 653 54 per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17 ; (2001) 178 ALR 421 , at 439 per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J; and Coal &amp; Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 ; (2000) 174 ALR 585 at 590 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ. See also: Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702 at [3] per Marshall J; WAJR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 106 at [18] , [2004] FCA 106 ; 204 ALR 624 at 628 to 629 per French J (as His Honour then was); NADZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 975 at [31] per Graham J; MZWDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 497 at [29] per Young J. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been conferred for the purpose of correction of any error in the decision of a Federal Magistrate, not to correct error on the part of the Tribunal.
Case: Abebe v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510
Outcome: cited
An administrative decision maker does not make an error of law by making a wrong finding of fact: Waterford v The Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25 ; (1987) 163 CLR 54 at 77; Abebe v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [137] . Insofar as the Tribunal concluded that there was no genuine spousal relationship, that was a conclusion of fact which is not subject to review by the Federal Magistrates Court or by this Court on appeal.
Case: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259
Outcome: cited
It was contended by the first respondent's counsel that the Tribunal's conclusions are factual and not subject to review by either this Court or the Federal Magistrates Court: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259. That submission must be accepted. There can be no doubt that the Federal Magistrates Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of administrative decision making. The merits of administrative decision making are for those who have the relevant power to make the decisions.
Case: Waterford v The Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25 ; (1987) 163 CLR 54
Outcome: cited
An administrative decision maker does not make an error of law by making a wrong finding of fact: Waterford v The Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25 ; (1987) 163 CLR 54 at 77; Abebe v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [137] . Insofar as the Tribunal concluded that there was no genuine spousal relationship, that was a conclusion of fact which is not subject to review by the Federal Magistrates Court or by this Court on appeal.
Case: Jackson v Sterling Industries Limited [1987] HCA 23 ; (1987) 162 CLR 612
Outcome: cited
purposes identified in the rules are consistent with the purposes for such orders identified by the High Court in Jackson v Sterling Industries Limited [1987] HCA 23 ; (1987) 162 CLR 612 and in Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited [1999] HCA 18 ; (1999) 198 CLR 380. The application is brought by the respondents to the proceeding and I shall continue to refer to them as the respondents. Next, his Honour considered the law. He noticed that the Court had power under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to make Mareva orders or, as they are referred to in the Rules, freezing orders, and he had regard to the decisions of the High Court in Jackson v Sterling Industries Limited [1987] HCA 23 ; (1987) 162 CLR 612 and Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18 ; (1999) 198 CLR 380.
Case: Australian Broadcasting Commission v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Outcome: cited
It is appropriate, in a case such as this, for the Court to evaluate the strength of CSA's case for final relief in relation to this aspect of its claim in order to see where the balance of convenience lies: Australian Broadcasting Commission v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [71] , [72] and Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 at 535-536.
Case: Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; (1968) 118 CLR 618
Outcome: cited
The requisite strength of the likelihood or probability which will be sufficient depends upon the nature of the rights asserted and the practical consequences likely to flow from the orders sought: Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; (1968) 118 CLR 618 at 84 per Gummow and Hayne JJ. 46 Here the grant of the interlocutory injunctions sought would amount, in practical effect, to final relief in respect to the s 45 case at least so far as the Perth Test is concerned. In my opinion, there are serious issues to be tried in relation to the various elements which arise on CSA's s 45 case. Accordingly the balance of convenience now requires to be considered.