Federal Court of Australia

Myers v Medion Australia Pty Ltd (Interlocutory Injunction) [2025] FCA 1409

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The Applicant’s application for interlocutory relief is refused.

2.    The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

introduction

1    The Applicant has filed an originating application dated 31 October 2025 seeking:

    A declaration that as per reg 69 of the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 (Cth) (TECS Determination 2019), a carriage service provider can cease supply of carriage services to a mobile phone only if it cannot access emergency call services via at least one carriage service provider.

    An order restraining the Respondent (trading as ALDI Mobile) from ceasing supply of carriage service to the Applicant’s Samsung Galaxy J5Pro, for reason of reg 69 of the TECS Determination 2019.

2    The Applicant is also applying for an order (effectively an interlocutory injunction) temporarily restraining the Respondent from blocking the Applicant’s Samsung Galaxy J5Pro from its network, until the matter is finally determined by the Court. This application came before me as the general duty judge.

3    For the following reasons, the Applicant’s application for interlocutory relief is refused.

4    Evidence: The Applicant relies on an affidavit affirmed by him on 3 November 2025 (Applicant affidavit). The Respondent relies on an affidavit by Ms Shelley Davis (Head of Customer and Compliance) affirmed on 13 November 2025 (Davis affidavit).

background

5    Applicant: The Applicant uses a Samsung Galaxy J5 Pro phone, also known as SM-J53OY. His SIM card is provided by ALDI Mobile. On 24 October 2025, he received a message from ALDI Mobile stating that his device “cannot call 000 on at least one Australian network”, and that “[w]e are legally required to network block such devices on 26/11/2025”. The Applicant says that he can access some networks to call 000, but was told by persons from the Respondent that his phone cannot access the Vodafone network. He sets out in his affidavit his reasons for wanting to keep the particular model of phone that he has.

6    Respondent (MEDION): Ms Davis states that the Respondent (MEDION) is an Australian carriage service provider that supplies pre-paid mobile telecommunications services to retail customers in Australia under the ALDI mobile brand.

    Ms Davis states that MEDION operates as a “mobile virtual network operator” on the Telstra Wholesale Mobile Network, meaning that MEDION obtains wholesale mobile services from Telstra Limited, which MEDION resells to its customers.

    Ms Davis states that, as a mobile virtual network operator, MEDION does not own or operate any telecommunications infrastructure and that, in Australia, mobile telephone networks are operated by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. The mobile services that MEDION resells to its customers under the ALDI Mobile brand are supplied over the Telstra Wholesale Mobile Network which is owned and operated by Telstra. The operation of that mobile network is carried out and controlled by Telstra, as the network operator.

    Ms Davis states that MEDION only supplies mobile phone services to its customers, and does not sell mobile phones. Customers are provided with an ALDI Mobile SIM card but must use their own mobile phone. MEDION does not know what make or model of mobile phone is being used by a customer unless MEDION is informed by the customer, or by Telstra as the mobile network operator.

7    Notifications of emergency services issues with older Samsung models: Ms Davis attaches an email from Telstra to MEDION dated 22 October 2025, which states (among other things):

    Where a user’s primary mobile network is unavailable, mobile devices are designed to automatically connect to another available mobile network to place an emergency services call. After some recent testing, Telstra identified some older Samsung mobile devices are not correctly connecting to the Vodafone mobile network when other mobile networks are unavailable. This does not affect a customer’s ability to call emergency services when the customer is connected to the Telstra Wholesale Mobile Network.

    The email stated that Telstra had identified a cohort of customers who would need to replace their Samsung devices, and would provide MEDION with this data. Telstra stated that blocking of affected Samsung devices from the Telstra Wholesale Mobile Network would be implemented on 26 November 2025.

    Telstra stated that MEDION should check its obligations under the TECS Determination 2019, in particular s 69(2), (3) and (5).

8    Ms Davis attaches a publication about affected Samsung devices on Telstra’s webpage on 22 October 2025. The list of Samsung devices that will need to be replaced includes the SM-J530Y (Galaxy J5); that is, the Applicant’s model. There were similar publications on the MEDION webpage, and on the Optus website, which both listed the Applicant’s model of phone in the list of affected devices. (I note that the Applicant has provided a screenshot of the MEDION website page with a different, shorter list, but the screenshot of the MEDION website attached to the Davis affidavit includes the Applicant’s model.)

9    Ms Davis states that Telstra provided MEDION with a list of customers with affected Samsung devices on 24 October 2025. Ms Davis states that she is aware that this list included the Applicant.

legislation

10    TCPSS Act – emergency call determinations: The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (Cth) (TCPSS Act) requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make a written determination imposing requirements on carriers, carriage service providers and emergency call persons in relation to emergency call services (s 147(1)). In making a determination under s 147(1), ACMA must have regard to the matters listed in s 147(2), which include:

(a)    the objective that a carriage service provider who supplies a standard telephone service should provide each end-user of that standard telephone service with access, free of charge, to an emergency call service, unless the ACMA considers that it would be unreasonable for such access to be provided;

(g)    the objective that, from the perspective of an ordinary end-user of a standard telephone service, there appears to be a single national emergency call system[.]

11    Compliance with a s 147 determination is mandatory, and non-compliance can attract civil penalties (s 148).

12    TECS Determination 2019, ss 68-69: The TECS Determination 2019 is made under s 147 of the TCPSS Act. Sections 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019 impose the following obligations on “carriage service providers” (such as MEDION) to identify whether a customer’s mobile phone can no longer access the emergency call service (s 68), and notification requirements and restrictions on supply in relation to those customers (s 69):

68 Requirement to identify whether a current customer’s mobile phone can no longer access the emergency call service – carriage service providers

A carriage service provider must use its best endeavours to promptly identify if a mobile phone that is accessing, or attempting to access, the provider’s own mobile network is, on or after 2 November 2024, no longer configured to access the emergency call service using both:

(a)     the provider’s own mobile network; and

(b)     if the provider’s own mobile network is unavailable, the mobile network of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public.

69 Notification requirements and restrictions on supply where a current customer’s mobile phone can no longer access the emergency call service – carriage service providers

(1)     This section applies if a carriage service provider has identified, on or after 2 November 2024, that a mobile phone of an end-user that is accessing, or attempting to access, the provider’s own mobile network is no longer configured to be able to access the emergency call service using both:

(a)     the provider’s own mobile network; and

(b)     if the provider’s own mobile network is unavailable, the mobile network of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public.

(2)     The carriage service provider must, within 5 business days, notify the end-user that the mobile phone is no longer configured to be able to access the emergency call service and that the carriage service provider will cease supply of carriage services to the mobile phone on a date that is between 28 and 35 days from the date of the notification.

(3)     The carriage service provider must, before ceasing supply of carriage services to the mobile phone, send a further two separate notifications to the end-user that the mobile phone is no longer configured to be able to access the emergency call service and the carriage service provider will cease supply of carriage services to the mobile phone.

(4)     The carriage service provider must cease supply of carriage services to the mobile phone:

(a)     no earlier than 28 days after the notification sent under subsection (2); and

(b)     no later than 35 days after the notification sent under subsection (2).

(5)     In addition to the information included in a notification under subsection (2) and prior to the ceasing of supply of carriage services to the mobile phone, a carriage service provider must also provide information to the end-user about alternative mobile phones that are available, including information about alternative low cost or no cost mobile phones that can access the emergency call service. (emphasis added)

13    Here, the notification by MEDION for the purposes of s 69(2) occurred on 24 October 2025. That means that, if s 69 applies, MEDION is required to cease supply of carriage services to the mobile phone between 21 and 28 November 2025, by reason of s 69(4).

consideration

14    Giving the Applicant procedural fairness: The Applicant is unrepresented. The Court has an overriding duty to ensure a fair trial for all parties, which means the Court will take appropriate steps to ensure that an unrepresented litigant has sufficient information about the practice and procedure of the Court, so far as is reasonably practicable for the purpose of ensuring a fair trial: see generally SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146; (2013) 216 FCR 445 at [37] (Robertson J, with Allsop CJ and Mortimer J agreeing), and NWQR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 30 at [27] (the Court). However, although the Court may be lenient in the standard of compliance which it expects from a litigant in person, that leniency does not go so far as to confer an advantage on the person who acts on their own behalf: Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 79 at [21] (the Court).

15    Here, the Court made orders permitting the Respondent to be served by email on Tuesday 11 November 2025: see Myers v Medion Australia Pty Ltd (Substituted Service) [2025] FCA 1380. Chambers emailed the parties on 12 November 2025, advising that the matter would be listed for case management on 14 November 2025, to seek to make timetabling orders to allow the application for interlocutory relief to be heard in advance of 26 November 2025. At about 4:30pm on Thursday 13 November 2025, the Respondent filed and served its materials, being submissions of five pages and the Davis affidavit (which is 41 pages).

16    Considerations of judicial economy greatly favoured dealing with the interlocutory application at the first case management hearing. The Court has power to grant relief at a directions hearing (including the first case management hearing): see Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 5.08(a) and (b). However, the Court would not do so if this would deprive the other party of a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case. Here, the Applicant was content for the application for interlocutory relief to proceed at the first case management hearing.

17    Interlocutory injunction – applicable principles: An applicant for an interlocutory injunction is required to demonstrate:

    first, that he has a prima facie case or has raised a serious question to be tried in relation to the relief sought in the proceeding, such as to justify the grant of interlocutory relief pending the hearing and determination of the proceeding; and

    second, that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interlocutory relief sought.

See Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [19] (Gleeson CJ and Crennan J), [65] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

18    These two requirements involve related inquiries, and each should not be considered in isolation from the other: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238 at [67] (the Court).

Arguable case?

19    The first issue is whether the Applicant has an arguable case.

20    Does the Applicant’s phone connect to Vodafone? The basis on which the Respondent will be blocking access to its service is that the Applicant’s phone cannot connect to all the three mobile networks in Australia. For the following reasons, I will proceed on the basis that the Applicant’s model of phone can connect to the Telstra and Optus networks, but not the Vodafone network.

    The 22 October 2025 email from Telstra states that Samsung SM-J53OY (Galaxy J5) phones do not automatically connect to the Vodafone network, but that these phones can continue to call the Telstra network: see [7] above. The Optus website also states that the Applicant’s model of phone will need to be replaced. These documents are admissible as business records, and should be given weight, as they are made in order to give effect to statutory obligations.

    The Applicant’s affidavit states that he believes he can make 000 calls on the Optus network (and he explains the basis of his belief), but he does not state that his phone can connect to the Vodafone network: see [7] above.

    At the hearing, the Applicant appeared to accept that in fact his phone cannot connect to the Vodafone network, but made arguments such as the problem was with Vodafone, not his device. He points out that MEDION’s website lists the attributes of what is required in a replacement device which (he says) are met by his current mobile phone. I am not able to rule on these technical questions of fact at this stage in the proceeding.

21    Interpretation of ss 68, 69: The Applicant contends that ss 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019 only require that he be able to access one other mobile network apart from his, not all other networks. This turns on what is meant by the reference in s 68(b) and 69(1)(b) to a mobile phone no longer being configured to be able to access the emergency call service using, “if the provider’s own mobile network is unavailable, the mobile network of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public”.

22    Text and purpose: Several matters suggest that these provisions require that a mobile phone be able to make calls to the emergency call service using all other mobile networks (when the provider’s own mobile network is unavailable).

    One indication, albeit not conclusive, is the text. If the Applicant were correct, then one might expect these provisions to refer to “another” carriage service provider, not “other carriage service providers”. It is true (as the Applicant argues) that a reference to the plural may include the singular (cf Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 23(b)), but this deliberate use of the plural (“carriage service providers”) favours the Respondent’s interpretation. The reference to “mobile network” (singular) can be explained by the fact that, although carriage service providers as a group use more than one mobile network, each carriage service provider uses a single network.

    More significantly, the purpose of the provision – to promote reliability of access to emergency call services – is promoted by requiring that a person’s phone be able to connect to all mobile networks. That interpretation promotes the objectives in s 147(2)(a) and (g) of the TCPSS Act. Thus, there is a contrary intention for the purposes of the Acts Interpretation Act.

    That understanding is confirmed by the Explanatory Statement to the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Amendment Determination 2024 (No. 1) (which inserted ss 68 and 69), which states at p 2 that the purpose of the amendments “is to reduce the risk of an end user using a mobile phone that is unable to access the [Emergency Call Service]”, and to “improve the overall reliability of access to the [Emergency Call Service] from mobile phone devices”.

23    Applicant’s arguments: The Applicant contends that it would not make sense to require that a phone be able to connect with all other mobile networks, and that Parliament may as well mandate that people carry multiple back-up batteries, or provide free accessible landlines for people to call emergency services. However, it is not for the Court to rule on the wisdom of the policy of ss 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019. These matters do not assist in the construction of those provisions.

24    The Applicant also refers to a direction made by the Minister (the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Emergency Call Service Determination) Direction 2024 (Cth)), which was the impetus for the 2024 amendments that inserted ss 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019. Section 6(2) of the Direction directs that the TECS Determination 2019 “be amended to give effect to the following objectives”:

(a)     carriage service providers be required to identify if the mobile phone of an end-user requesting the supply of carriage services from the provider is able to access the emergency call service using both:

(i)     the provider’s own network; and

(ii)     the networks of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public;

(b)     where an end-user’s mobile phone is unable to access the emergency call service using either the provider’s own network or the networks of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public, the carriage service provider is:

(i)     to notify the end-user that the mobile phone is not able to access the emergency call service;

(ii)     not to supply carriage services to the end-user in connection with that mobile phone;

(iii)     to provide the end-user with information about alternative mobile phones available, including low cost or no cost mobile phones, which are able to access the emergency call service; and

(iv)     to ensure the carriage service provider’s payment assistance policy includes avenues for financial hardship customers to receive assistance to obtain a low cost or no cost alternative mobile phone which is able to access the emergency call service;

(c)     carriage service providers be required to use best endeavours to promptly identify if an end-user’s mobile phone to which carriage services are being provided is no longer able to access the emergency call service using either:

(i)     the provider’s own network, or

(ii)     the networks of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public;

(d)     where an end-user’s mobile phone is no longer able to access the emergency call service using either the provider’s own network, or the networks of other carriage service providers who provide carriage services to the public, the carriage service provider is to:

(i)     within a specified period, notify the end-user that the mobile phone is no longer able to access the emergency call service;

(ii)     at the end of a specified period, cease supplying carriage services to the end-user in connection with that mobile phone;

(iii)     provide the end-user with information about alternative mobile phones available, including low cost or no cost mobile phones, which are able to access the emergency call service; and

(iv)     ensure the carriage service provider’s payment assistance policy includes avenues for financial assistance customers to receive assistance to obtain a low cost or no cost alternative mobile phone which is able to access the emergency call service [.] (emphasis added)

25    The Applicant contends that s 6(2)(b)-(d) require only that a person be able to access the emergency call service using either the provider’s own network, or the network of other carriage service providers; that is, it is said the Direction does not even require a “back up”, and it is sufficient if the person can obtain access to the emergency call service through the provider’s own network. However, it is necessary to read s 6(2) as a whole: s 6(2)(a) identifies the relevant category (identifying whether a mobile phone can access the emergency call service using both the provider’s own network and the networks of other carriage service providers). In that context, s 6(2)(b)-(d) should be read as referring, implicitly, to whether a mobile phone is able to access the emergency call service through either the provider’s own network or (if that network is not available) the networks of other carriage service providers. Otherwise, the operation of s 6(2)(b)-(d) would be at odds with the operation of s 6(2)(a). This interpretation of the Direction is supported by the Explanatory Statement to the Direction, which states (at p 7):

It is intended mobiles phones should be able to access the emergency call service using both the network of the provider supplying carriage services to it, and each other network belonging to the other providers supplying carriage services to the public. This will ensure, in the event an end user must use emergency call camp on functionality to access the emergency call service, the end user's call will be carried regardless of the network utilised. (emphasis added)

26    Accordingly, the Direction does not assist the Applicant; to the contrary, it supports the interpretation of the TECS Determination 2019 set out above.

27    It is not necessary to reach a concluded view on the interpretation of ss 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019 for the purposes of the interlocutory application. However, the Applicant’s case on this point is weak, at best.

Balance of convenience

28    The second requirement for an interlocutory injunction is the balance of convenience.

29    General principles: In Samsung Electronics, the Full Court said:

    “[t]he assessment of harm to the plaintiff, if there is no injunction, and the assessment of prejudice or harm to the defendant, if an injunction is granted, is at the heart of the basket of discretionary considerations which must be addressed and weighed as part of the Court’s consideration of the balance of convenience and justice”: at [62]; and

    “[i]n exercising that discretion, the Court is required to assess and compare the prejudice and hardship likely to be suffered by the defendant, third persons and the public generally if an injunction is granted, with that which is likely to be suffered by the plaintiff if no injunction is granted”: at [66].

These principles were affirmed in Martin & Pleasance Pty Ltd v A Nelson & Co Ltd [2021] FCAFC 80 at [37] (the Court).

30    Balance of convenience strongly tends against injunction: I accept and adopt the Respondent’s submissions that the balance of convenience strongly tends against granting the injunction sought by the Applicant.

(a)    If the Applicant’s device is blocked from the Telstra mobile network on 26 November 2025, he will continue to be able to access mobile services via his ALDI Mobile SIM card. It is true that the SIM card will need to be inserted into another mobile device; however, MEDION has previously offered to provide the Applicant with a compatible device free of charge.

(b)    On the other hand, a failure to block the device would cause MEDION to act contrary to the TECS Determination 2019. It may also result in the Applicant being unable to call triple zero if the Telstra and Optus mobile networks are not available.

31    The Applicant desires to keep his current mobile phone, because it allows him to record calls and more recent models do not allow this. He states that it is important to him that he able to do so. This desire is in my view outweighed by the countervailing considerations in [30](b) above. The Applicant is still able to make calls and use the internet on other phones.

32    Futility? MEDION also contends that it would be futile to order interlocutory relief against it, because Telstra is independently required by ss 68 and 69 of the TECS Determination 2019 to block service to the Applicant, because Telstra is also a “carriage service provider” in relation to the Applicant. It is not necessary to rule on that argument.

Conclusion

33    This weighing of the balance of convenience, combined with the weakness of the Applicant’s arguments, means that this is not an appropriate case for granting an interlocutory injunction. The Applicant’s application for interlocutory relief must therefore be dismissed.

34    Costs: The usual rule is that costs follow the event. The Applicant stated that the reason he was required to bring this proceeding is that MEDION was unable to explain to the Applicant’s satisfaction why his mobile phone could not connect to the Vodafone network. He also stated that he does not have the means to pay any costs order. Neither of these matters is reason to depart from the usual rule on costs; in particular, the fact that a party lacks means (is “impecunious”) is not a reason (on grounds of futility or otherwise) not to make an order for costs against that party: see Davis v Wilson (Costs) [2025] FCA 666 at [61] (Shariff J), citing Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 at [34]-[35] (the Court).

Associate:

Dated:    14 November 2025