FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 1062
CORRIGENDUM
SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED and ANOR v NEWS LIMITED and ORS
NSD 1223 of 2002
SACKVILLE J
27 JULY 2007 (DATE OF CORRIGENDUM 16 AUGUST 2007)
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 1223 of 2002 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED First Applicant
C7 PTY LIMITED Second Applicant
|
|
AND: |
NEWS LIMITED First Respondent
SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED Second Respondent
TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED Third Respondent
FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED Fourth Respondent
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Fifth Respondent
TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED Sixth Respondent
PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED Seventh Respondent
NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Eighth Respondent
PREMIER MEDIA GROUP PTY LIMITED Ninth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED Twelfth Respondent
NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent
NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED Fourteenth Respondent
FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION PTY LIMITED Fifteenth Respondent
OPTUS VISION PTY LIMITED Sixteenth Respondent
AUSTAR UNITED COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Seventeenth Respondent
AUSTAR ENTERTAINMENT PTY LIMITED Eighteenth Respondent
IAN HUNTLY PHILIP Nineteenth Respondent
NEWS PAY TV PTY LIMITED Twentieth Respondent
PBL PAY TV PTY LIMITED Twenty-First Respondent
SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED Twenty-Second Respondent
OPTUS VISION PTY LTD First Cross Claimant
SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED Second Cross Claimant
SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED First Cross Respondent
C7 PTY LIMITED Second Cross Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
SACKVILLE J |
|
DATE: |
27 JULY 2007 (DATE OF CORRIGENDUM 16 AUGUST 2007) |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
1 In the Summary at paragraph 15, second bullet-point,
‘…AFL pay television rights for the 2000 to 2006 seasons …’
should be changed to read
‘… AFL pay television rights for the 2002 to 2006 seasons …’.
2 In the Summary at paragraph 15,
‘… sub-license the pay television rights to Foxtel …’
should be changed to read
‘… sub-license the AFL pay television rights to Foxtel …’
3 In the Summary at paragraph 54,
‘In Chapter 21 I conclude that …’
should be changed to read
In Chapter 21, I conclude that …’
4 In the Summary at paragraph 60,
‘… the transactions that gave rise to this litigation are long passed …’
should be changed to read
‘… the transactions that gave rise to this litigation are long past …’.
5 In the list of authorities, ‘McLellan’ should be replaced with ‘McClellan’. Similarly in paragraph 371 and 372 of the Reasons for Judgment ‘McLellan’ should be replaced with ‘McClellan’.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Sackville. |
Associate:
Dated: 16 August 2007
