Federal Court of Australia

McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653

ORDERS

Definitions

In these orders, the following definitions are used:

ACL means Australian Consumer Law.

Director's Agreement means the agreement entered into between the Applicant and First Respondent dated 24 February 2020, as amended in March 2023.

Documentary means any existing version and future version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted!, including the Sundance Version and the Feature Version.

Feature Version means the feature length version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted! in the form prepared for screening at the MIFF in August 2025.

MIFF means Melbourne International Film Festival.

Sundance Version means the version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted! screened at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2025.

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.    The First Respondent and Second Respondent have infringed and have threatened to continue to infringe the Applicant's right of attribution under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in respect of the Sundance Version and Feature Version by, in Australia, doing or authorising the doing of the following acts:

(a)    making a copy of those versions;

(b)    threatening to exhibit those versions; and

(c)    threatening to communicate those versions to the public,

by including in those versions the credit "Director" for the Applicant while using the credit "Directed by" for the Second Respondent and by the manner in which the credits were ordered.

2.    The First Respondent and Second Respondent have infringed and threatened to continue to infringe the Applicant's right not to have the Sundance Version and Feature Version falsely attributed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) by, in Australia, affixing or inserting, or authorising the inserting or affixing of, the Second Respondent's name on the Sundance Version and Feature Version so as to convey that the Second Respondent was the principal director of the Sundance Version and Feature Version and that the Applicant was not.

3.    The First Respondent has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the ACL by:

(a)    causing the directing credits displayed on the entry for the Documentary accessible via the URL "imdb.com" to be changed in late 2023 or early 2024, from "directed by Stephen McCallum" to "directed by Stephen McCallum and David Ngo", and in November 2024 causing a poster to be displayed on the Documentary's IMDB Page which contained the text "written and directed by David Ngo" and "Director Stephen McCallum";

(b)    causing the entry for the Documentary on the website for the Sundance Film Festival:

(i)    not to include any directing credits under the list of credits;

(ii)    to state under the heading "Meet the Artist / David Anthony Ngo" that "Never Get Busted! is his directorial debut"; and

(iii)    to include under the heading "Director(s)" the name "David Ngo";

(c)    causing the Sundance Version to contain the following credits:

(i)    in the opening credits, the Applicant is credited with "Director" on a sole card and the Second Respondent is credited with "Written and Directed By" on the final card before the Documentary begins; and

(ii)    in the end credit roll, the Second Respondent is credited first with "Written and Directed by", and the Applicant is credited as "Director" below the Second Respondent's credit; and

(d)    on or about July 2025, causing the credits for the Documentary in the MIFF promotional materials to state "Directed By" the Second Respondent with no reference to the Applicant.

4.    The First Respondent threatened to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the ACL by preparing a version of the Documentary for MIFF containing credits which referred to the Documentary being "Directed by David Anthony Ngo" and "Director Stephen McCallum".

5.    The First Respondent has breached:

(a)    Clause 9.1 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to attribute the Applicant with the credit "Directed by Stephen McCallum" in the credits of the Sundance Version and Feature Version.

(b)    Clause 9.2 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to obtain the Applicant's agreement to add a credit line for the Second Respondent as a director of the Documentary in a position that was mutually agreed with the Applicant.

(c)    Clause 3 of the Director's Agreement by failing to pay the Applicant $25,000.

(d)    Clause 5 of the Director's Agreement by failing to provide papercuts, assemblies, rough cuts, fine cuts and the final cuts of versions of the Documentary to the Applicant for his approval.

6.    The Applicant has breached clause 7.1(c)(iv) of the Director's Agreement by causing his agent Ms Islam to communicate to a third party that Projector Films had been responsible for removing his name altogether from the entry for the Documentary on the IMDb website.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

7.    The First and Second Respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise, be permanently restrained from, in Australia:

(a)    infringing the Applicant's right of attribution under the Copyright Act in respect of the Documentary; and

(b)    infringing the Applicant's right under the Copyright Act not to have the Applicant's role as principal director of the Documentary falsely attributed.

8.    The First Respondent, whether by itself or by its servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise, be permanently restrained from:

(a)    representing in trade or commerce that the Applicant is not the sole principal director of the Documentary; and

(b)    representing in trade or commerce that the Second Respondent is the principal director, or a principal director, of the Documentary.

9.    The First and Second Respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise:

(a)    must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary on copies of the Documentary, but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

(b)    must apply to all copies of the Documentary within their control, a credit reading "Directed by Stephen McCallum":

(i)    in the opening credits, on the last directing credit card before the title at the beginning of the Documentary, such credit card to:

A.    be a single person credit card;

B.    be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card; and

C.    be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

(ii)    in the closing credits, on the first directing credit card after the fade-out at the end of the Documentary, such credit card to:

A.    be a single person credit card;

B.    be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card;

C.    be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

D.    be in the same position on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

10.    The First Respondent:

(a)    must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary in advertising and promotional material for the Documentary but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

(b)    must ensure that:

(i)    all advertising and promotional material for the Documentary which includes credits of any kind, published, or caused or authorised to be published, by the First Respondent include the words "Directed by Stephen McCallum" except where that material only contains credits for executive producers; and

(ii)    where a credit block appears in such advertising and promotional material, those words are to constitute the last directing credit and be in font no smaller than any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credit, or any other credit of the Second Respondent.

11.    The First Respondent pay the Applicant $25,000 within 21 days of the date of these orders.

12.    The Applicant is to file any further evidence and submissions in support of the balance of the claims of relief sought in the Amended Originating Application together with the issue of costs of and incidental to the Liability Judgment on or by 22 June 2026.

13.    The Respondents are to file any evidence and submissions in reply on or by 20 July 2026.

14.    The Applicant is to file any evidence and submissions in reply on or by 3 August 2026.

15.    The matter will be listed for case management at 9.30 am on 11 August 2026 with a view to fixing the remaining issues for hearing at a time convenient to the Court.

16.    The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SHARIFF J:

1.    INTRODUCTION

1    On 27 February 2026, I published my reasons for making findings as to the infringement of the applicant’s (Mr McCallum’s) moral rights under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and breaches of the Director’s Agreement by the first respondent (Projector Films) and, in one respect, by Mr McCallum: see McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173 (the Liability Judgment or LJ). In light of the nature of the relief that was sought by Mr McCallum, I ordered the parties to confer in order to provide consent or competing orders to give effect to my reasons and to progress the matter to a hearing on the question of remaining relief, remedies and other orders including costs: LJ at [981].

2    The parties have been unable to reach agreement on all the orders that should be made at this stage of the proceedings, but they have agreed to some of them. The question of what orders should now be made is the issue that falls for determination.

3    In what follows, I have set out my determination in relation to each of the issues contested by the parties as to the orders that should be made. These reasons assume familiarity with the Liability Judgment and I adopt the defined terms used therein and have not repeated the findings I made in that Judgment, other than where it has been necessary to do so or for convenience.

2.    DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO THE INFRINGEMENTS OF MR MCCALLUM’S MORAL RIGHTS

4    The parties agree that the following declaratory orders should be made to reflect my reasons:

1.    The First Respondent and Second Respondent have infringed and have threatened to continue to infringe the Applicant's right of attribution under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in respect of the Sundance Version and Feature Version by, in Australia, doing or authorising the doing of the following acts:

a.    making a copy of those versions;

b.    threatening to exhibit those versions; and

c.    threatening to communicate those versions to the public,

by including in those versions the credit "Director" for the Applicant while using the credit "Directed by" for the Second Respondent and by the manner in which the credits were ordered.

2.    The First Respondent and Second Respondent have infringed and threatened to continue to infringe the Applicant's right not to have the Sundance Version and Feature Version falsely attributed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) by, in Australia, affixing or inserting, or authorising the inserting or affixing of, the Second Respondent's name on the Sundance Version and Feature Version so as to convey that the Second Respondent was the principal director of the Sundance Version and Feature Version and that the Applicant was not.

5    However, there is a minor dispute between the parties in relation to scope of the declaratory relief based on the definition of “Feature Version” which is embedded within the text of the proposed order. For the purpose of the proposed orders, the parties have agreed to the following definitions, with the one exception being that Mr McCallum proposes the inclusion of the additional words “amongst other festivals” in the definition of “Feature Version” as follows:

Definitions

In these orders, the following definitions are used:

ACL means Australian Consumer Law.

Director's Agreement means the agreement entered into between the Applicant and First Respondent dated 24 February 2020, as amended in March 2023.

Documentary means any existing version and future version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted!, including the Sundance Version and the Feature Version.

Feature Version means the feature length version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted! in the form prepared for screening at the MIFF in August 2025,. amongst other festivals.

MIFF means Melbourne International Film Festival.

Sundance Version means the version of the documentary entitled Never Get Busted! screened at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2025.

6    The respondents oppose the addition of the words “amongst other festivals” in the definition of “Feature Version”. The respondents submit that I did not make any findings about whether the version of the Documentary that was screened at the MIFF was the one that was shown at other film festivals.

7    The respondents’ submissions should be accepted. I did not make any findings as to the version of the Documentary that was screened at other film festivals. Mr McCallum did not provide an explanation for the proposed inclusion of the words “amongst other festivals”. Accordingly, I prefer the form of orders as proposed by the respondents in this respect, which, for the avoidance of doubt, omits the words “amongst other festivals”.

3.    DECLARATORY RELIEF IN RELATION TO MR MCCALLUM’S BREACH OF THE DIRECTOR’S AGREEMENT

8    The parties largely agreed as to the form of declaratory relief to be granted in relation to Projector Films’ breaches of the Director’s Agreement, with some disputes remaining between them. The best way to identify these disputes is to set out the version of the declarations that the respondents have proposed with Mr McCallum’s changes to them identified in underline and strike-through as follows:

5.    The First Respondent has breached:

a.    Clause 9.1 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to attribute the Applicant with the credit "Directed by Stephen McCallum" in the credits of the Sundance Version and Feature Version and in some promotional material associated with the Documentary.

b.    Clause 9.2 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to obtain the Applicant's agreement to credit the Second Respondent in a position superior to the Applicant’s credit in the opening title credits, and the rolling closing credits, of versions of the Documentary. positioning of the Second Respondent’s credit as a director of the Documentary.

c.    Clause 3 of the Director's Agreement by failing to pay the Applicant $25,000.

d.    Clause 5 of the Director's Agreement by failing to provide papercuts, assemblies, rough cuts, fine cuts and the final cuts of versions of the Documentary to the Applicant for his approval.

9    As will be evident from the above, Mr McCallum seeks and the respondents oppose, the deletion of the word “some” in proposed order 5(a) and the replacement of the words “positioning of the Second Respondent’s credit as a director of the Documentary” with the words “credit the Second Respondent in a position superior to the Applicant’s credit in the opening title credits, and the rolling closing credits, of versions of the Documentary”.

10    In relation to proposed order 5(a), the respondents submit that the word “some” should be included because my findings relating to Projector Films’ breach of clause 9.1 of the Director’s Agreement was limited to specific promotional materials, namely the IMDb database and certain promotional materials associated with the Sundance Film Festival and MIFF. Mr McCallum submits that the inclusion of the word “some” might be justified if there was “evidence of any material, published by Projector Films other than under court order, in which [Mr McCallum] was correctly attributed” as the principal director.

11    I do not accept either parties’ submissions in respect of proposed order 5(a).

12    Mr McCallum is correct to point out that there was no evidence before me as to any promotional material associated with the Documentary where Mr McCallum was correctly attributed as the principal director of the Documentary. However, the difficulty with Mr McCallum’s position is that I did not make findings about which promotional material offended cl 9.1. That is because, although a case was pleaded to that effect (at [37]-[38] of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 12 September 2025), Mr McCallum’s closing submissions did not direct themselves with any specificity to promotional materials in the context of breaches of cl 9.1 of the Director’s Agreement (see ACS at 5.1). Rather, the case in relation to promotional materials that was advanced in submissions before me was focussed upon contraventions of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.

13    Nor do I accept the respondents’ contention that the word “some” should be included in proposed order 5(a). This begs the question as to which ones. Declarations made by the Court should not be opaque.

14    Ultimately, my reasons at [806]-[831] of the Liability Judgment reflect the parties’ respective submissions. At LJ [807], I summarised Mr McCallum’s pleaded case that “…in breach of cl 9.1, he has not been given the credit ‘Directed by Stephen McCallum’ in the credits for the Documentary and in other promotional materials” (emphasis added). However, my findings were, consistently with the way the parties put their respective cases in closing submissions, limited to a breach of the Director’s Agreement in relation to opening and closing credits relating to the Documentary, not in relation to promotional materials. Accordingly, I will make a declaration in the following form:

5.    The First Respondent has breached:

a.    Clause 9.1 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to attribute the Applicant with the credit "Directed by Stephen McCallum" in the credits of the Sundance Version and Feature Version.

15    In relation to proposed order 5(b), both parties maintain that their proposed wording better reflected my reasons at [832]-[834] of the Liability Judgment. What I there said was this:

832.    Clause 9.2 provides that, “[a]dditional directors may be added to the Director’s credit line in a position to be mutually agreed between the Director and the Producer upon completion of the Documentary”.

833.    Mr McCallum submitted that he had not agreed to Mr Ngo being added as an additional director to the credit line. The respondents submitted that cl 9.2 does not require Mr McCallum’s agreement to an additional director being retained but requires his agreement to the positioning of an additional director on the credit line. In other words, the respondents submitted that cl 9.2 only deals with the positioning of credits. Mr McCallum submitted that, even if that construction is accepted, Projector Films still breached because Mr McCallum’s consent was not sought, or obtained, to put Mr Ngo’s credit in the position it was placed, namely, in a position superior to Mr McCallum’s next to the main title, and at the start of the rolling credits.

834.    Mr McCallum’s alternative submission should be accepted. The unassailable facts are that Mr McCallum did not give his agreement to the placement and positioning of Mr Ngo’s credit as a director in the Sundance or Feature Versions. It follows that Projector Films breached cl 9.2.

16    The substance of my reasons was that, contrary to cl 9.2 of the Director’s Agreement, Projector Films had not obtained Mr McCallum’s consent to add a credit line for Mr Ngo as a director of the Documentary in a position that was required to be mutually agreed. I do not accept that the text of the declaration proposed by either party reflects this finding. In my view, the following declaration reflects the finding that I made:

5.    The First Respondent has breached:

…

b.    Clause 9.2 of the Director's Agreement, by failing to obtain the Applicant's agreement to add a credit line for the Second Respondent as a director of the Documentary in a position that was mutually agreed with the Applicant.

4.    ORDERS RELATING TO CONTRACTUAL INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY PROJECTOR FILMS

17    The respondents seek an order in the following terms:

9.    The Applicant, whether by himself or by his servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from, during the term of the Director’s Agreement, breaching clause 7.1(c)(iv) of the Director’s Agreement by bringing adverse publicity or notoriety to the First Respondent.

18    In the alternative, the respondents seek the addition of the following words to the above injunction: “but it shall not be a breach of this order for the Applicant to make any truthful communication concerning the content or effect of the judgments and orders of the Court in this proceeding”.

19    The respondents accept that equity will not intervene to grant an injunctive remedy for breach of contract unless it is shown that common law remedies are inadequate (citing Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 46; 223 CLR 660 at [11] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ)) and acknowledge the requirement of inadequacy of damages (see eg Tullett Prebon (Australia) Pty Ltd v Simon Purcell [2008] NSWSC 852 at [97] (Brereton J)). The respondents submitted that a negative covenant constitutes a strong foundation for relief by way of injunction (Dalgety Wine Estates Pty Ltd v Rizzon [1979] HCA 41; 141 CLR 552 at 576 per Mason J (Stephen and Murphy JJ agreeing)), and that if a clear legal duty is imposed by contract to refrain from some act, then, prima facie, an injunction should go to restrain the doing of that act (JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey [1931] HCA 15; 45 CLR 282 at 299 per Dixon J (Duffy CJ agreeing); and also relying upon Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; 210 CLR 181 at [76] (Kirby J), [102] (Callinan J) (both in dissent)).

20    The respondents submitted that as the Director’s Agreement remains on foot, it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion and grant an injunction restraining Mr McCallum from breaching the negative covenant in clause 7.1(c)(iv), including because of the difficulties that Projector Films will experience in establishing causation and quantifying damage caused by the existing breach of clause 7.1(c)(iv), let alone any future breach of that clause. Such an order, they say, would not require the Court to supervise the performance of the contract: cf Dalgety at 574; JC Williamson at 299-300.

21    Mr McCallum submitted that there is no ongoing threat of conduct in breach of cl 7.1(c)(iv) of the Director’s Agreement and accordingly, that proposed order 9 has no utility: State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v Maurice Blackburn [2022] FCAFC 57 at [114]-[120] (Jagot, Burley and Rofe JJ).

22    I accept Mr McCallum’s submissions in this respect. The conduct that I found to have breached cl 7.1(c)(iv) of the Director’s Agreement arose in unique circumstances. As explained at LJ [969], the relevant conduct related to a communication sent by Mr McCallum’s agent, Ms Islam, in relation to what she alleged to have been Projector Films’ conduct in removing Mr McCallum’s name as a director of the Documentary from the IMDb website. That particular conduct arose in the particular context of heightened disputation between the parties, and Mr McCallum and his agents seeking to assert and preserve his position in relation to the attribution of his moral rights and as against false attribution of his moral rights. Since that time, there has been a contested hearing conducted in open court and I have now made findings in relation to the conduct of the relevant parties to the litigation. There is no evidence before me that there is any present threat or risk of Mr McCallum acting contrary to cl 7.1(c)(iv), which would in any event need to take account of the findings I have made about the operation of that clause.

23    For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the injunction sought by the respondents has an evidentiary foundation and, in any event, I would refuse to exercise my discretion to make such an injunction in light of the matters that have come to pass by reason of the findings I have made.

5.    ORDERS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED FORM OF CREDITS APPEARING ON THE DOCUMENTARY

24    The respondents submit that an order in the following form better reflects my reasons in relation to the findings I made in the Liability Judgment as to the attribution of Mr McCallum as a principal director of the Documentary:

10.     The First and Second Respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise:

a.     must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary on copies of the Documentary, but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.     must apply to all copies of the Documentary within their control, a credit reading "Directed by Stephen McCallum":

i.     in the opening credits, on the last directing credit card before the title at the beginning of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.     be a single person credit card;

2.     be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card; and

3.     be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

ii.     in the closing credits, on the first directing credit card after the fade-out at the end of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.     be a single person credit card;

2.     be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card;

3.     be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

4.     be in the same position on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

25    Mr McCallum seeks the following amendments to the above form of order (with his additions in underline and deletions in strike-through):

10.    The First and Second Respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise:

a.    must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary on copies of the Documentary, without a qualifying term identifying him as a subsidiary director but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.    must apply to all copies of the Documentary within their control, a credit reading "Directed by Stephen McCallum":

i.    in the opening credits, on the last directing credit card before the title at the beginning of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.    be a single person credit card;

2.    be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card; and

3.    be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

4.    be in the samecentrally positioned on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

ii.    in the closing credits, on the first directing credit card after the fade-out at the end of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.    be a single person credit card;

2.    be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card;

3.    be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

4.    be in the samecentrally positioned on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

26    In relation to the form of the respective directing credits, the respondents maintain that, in accordance with the Liability Judgment at [771]-[775], Mr Ngo is entitled to the credit “director” so long as it is used in conjunction with the credit “directed by” for Mr McCallum. By contrast, Mr McCallum submits that it is insufficient for Mr Ngo to be given the credit “director” and that further language must be inserted to indicate that he is a “subsidiary director” consistent with s 191(1) of the Copyright Act. He says this is particularly necessary: (a) having regard to my findings at [771] of the Liability Judgment, where I rejected an approach fixating on the grammatical forms in isolation, and emphasised that it was necessary to look at the credits as a whole, including the structure and placement of credits; and (b) in circumstances where the respondents seek to include the credit “A documentary by” in a superior font, duration and screen position. The respondents are opposed to the insertion of wording requiring them to identify Mr Ngo as a “subsidiary director” on the basis that this wording would only be productive of further dispute, and the terms “additional director”, “second unit director” and “assistant director” do not accurately describe Mr Ngo’s contribution.

27    In relation to the positioning of the credits, Mr McCallum contends that his credit must be centrally positioned on the screen, and occupy the last credit card before the title in the opening credits and the first credit card in the closing credits. The respondents contend that all that is required is that Mr McCallum’s “directed by” credit is placed in the more prestigious position than that of Mr Ngo’s credit as a director and have accordingly inserted the qualifier “directing” into the chapeau of proposed order 10(b)(i) and (ii), presumably to allow them to insert a “A documentary by” credit in the most prestigious position in the opening and closing credits. The respondents submit that this is appropriate given that Mr McCallum’s case related to the directing credits and I made no findings about the meaning of other credits such as “created by”, “showrunner” or “a documentary by”, such that I should not now be asked to make orders affecting those credits. Mr McCallum does not seek orders prohibiting the respondents from inserting the credit “A documentary by” but submits that the respondents should not be permitted to diminish Mr McCallum’s directing credit or aggrandise that of Mr Ngo.

28    In relation to the features of the credit, Mr McCallum’s form of order requires that the credit be a single-person credit card but be in a font and for a duration equivalent to any other credit card. The respondents proposed form of order merely requires that Mr McCallum’s credit card be in a font and for a duration equivalent to any other “single person” credit card on the basis that it is standard practice, they say, for multi-person credit cards to be shown on the screen for a longer period of time, due to the fact that viewers need more time to read multiple names.

29    The respondents’ submissions should be accepted in most respects. In order to explain why, it is necessary to set out what I reasoned and found in the Liability Judgment at [768]-[775], which was as follows:

768.    It is correct that Ms Maclaren considered that both grammatical forms of credit (“director” / “directed by”) could be used to credit the principal director of a film. However, Ms Maclaren’s evidence was that in a given film, the grammatical form of credits would normally be consistent and that “it is unusual for a single film to include two separate grammatical forms, especially in respect of the same credit”: Maclaren 1 [37]. Consistent with this, where two individuals both directed a film, Ms Maclaren considered that one “would normally expect to see their two names under a ‘directed by’ or ‘director’” credit: T403.12-13. In her view, using both grammatical forms of credit in a single film “just looks a bit odd”: T403.21.

769.     While Ms Maclaren considered that there was a “very fine line” between the two forms of credit (T401.45), and although she did not consider the difference to be “substantial” (T402.01), her opinion was more nuanced than as characterised by the respondents. Notably, Ms Maclaren acknowledged in cross-examination that there had been a trend of using the “directed by” form of credit and gave evidence that “it seems to be more fashionable at the moment” to use “directed by” rather than “director”: T402.08-12. This evidence is consistent with Mr de Heer’s evidence that he has “found a shift over the past decade or so” with the “by” form of credit being preferred: T402.24-29.

770.    In addition to this, Ms Maclaren expressed the view that the “by” form of credit may carry an implication of “ownership”: T402.36. Importantly, she also accepted that different grammatical forms of credits could be used to convey inequality as between directors. In this regard, it was put to Ms Maclaren, and accepted, that a “written & directed by” credit given to three people indicated equality between directors, whereas a “co-directed by” credit and “directed by” credit (when used together) indicated inequality between directors: T 408.04-26; Exhibit 17; Exhibit 22. This evidence given by Ms Maclaren generally accorded with Mr de Heer’s opinion that where a “directed by” credit and “director” credit both appear in a film, the “directed by” credit conveys that the credited person was the principal director and the “director” credit conveys that the credited person was a subsidiary director: de Heer 1 [96]; de Heer 2 [16]. Although Mr de Heer did not refer to a particular example to substantiate his evidence, I do not accept the respondents’ submission that his opinion had no basis as he (like Ms Maclaren) was relying upon his experience in the industry over a long period of time.

771.    Ultimately, it is my view that it is not helpful in the present case to fixate on the grammatical form of credit in insolation. The central question is whether Mr McCallum has been attributed as the principal director of the Documentary and will be so credited, whether there has been false attribution and whether that position will continue. In answering that question, it is necessary to look at the credits as a whole, including in relation to structure and placement of credits. It is also necessary to consider these issues in light of the respondents’ acceptance that, where there is more than one director, the credit “director” is marginally lesser and the credit “directed by” indicated the “main person” who exercised creative control and oversight over the filmmaking process.

772.    In reviewing the evidence, it is apparent that the use of alternate forms of credit was a deliberate technique deployed by the makers of the Documentary. This can readily be seen by examining the closing credits that appeared in both the Sundance and Feature Versions of the Documentary: see Exhibit 25 at 0:47:24; Exhibit 25 at 1:47:07). Those credits are extracted above at paragraph [756].

773.    As can be seen from these credits, it is not only the director credits that have been attributed in two forms—the producers and executive producers of the film have also been separated into distinct line entries with “produced by” and “producer” credits, and “executive produced by” and “executive producers” credits. It is noteworthy that the “directed by”, “produced by”, and “executive produced by” credits appear higher up than their respective counterparts (ie “director”, “producer”, and “executive producers”). I accept Mr McCallum’s submission (Applicant’s Closing Submissions (ACS) [215]), consistent with Mr de Heer and Ms Maclaren’s evidence, that by the order of the credits and the attribution of a “directed by” credit, Mr Ngo is given the most prestigious position and is recognised as the “driving force” or principal director of the Documentary: see de Heer 1 [94]; Maclaren 1 [39]-[40]; T402.4-6.

774.    I am satisfied that the evident intention of delineating between individuals within role categories in this way is to distinguish between those who made a more substantial contribution in a particular role from others who made a less substantial contribution within that same role. This is consistent with the respondents’ submission that “Mr Ngo had a marginally more substantial role” than Mr McCallum as director: RCS [169]. I do not accept, however, that the division only reflects a marginal difference in substantive contribution. There is no evidentiary basis to support such a conclusion.

775.    It follows that I reject the respondents’ submission that the credits convey that both Mr Ngo and Mr McCallum are principal directors but with “some daylight between them”: T195.28. Rather, I accept that there is presently “daylight” between how the two men have been attributed, such that Mr McCallum has not been attributed as the principal director (or for that matter, a principal director) and Mr Ngo has been falsely attributed as the principal director (and the only such principal director).

(Emphasis added.)

30    As will be evident from the above, the central focus of my reasons (and, indeed, the pleaded case) was on the attribution or the relative attribution of Mr McCallum and Mr Ngo as directors of the Documentary. In the result, I concluded that Mr McCallum was the principal director of the Documentary and that Mr Ngo was a director of the Documentary, not a principal director. I further concluded, by reference to the consensus between the respective experts, and by reference to the overall context of the relevant credits, that Mr McCallum had not been recognised as the principal director of the Documentary and that there had been a false attribution of Mr Ngo as a principal director, having regard to the grammatical form of the credits used for both of them (“Directed by”) in the context of the positioning of those respective credits (in terms of structure and placement), which conveyed that Mr Ngo was a principal director of the film.

31    As the respondents correctly submitted, I made no findings in relation to the attribution of a person as a creator of a film and the grammatical form of or position of such a credit relative to the credits of other persons involved in the making of a film. I observed that in relation to other credits such as those for the producers and executive producers, there had been a delineation between them in the manner set out at LJ [773].

32    The Court’s power to make orders in relation to an infringement of moral rights is located in s 195AZA of the Copyright Act. That section relevantly provides as follows:

195AZA     Remedies for infringements of author’s moral rights

(1)     Subject to section 203, the relief that a court may grant in an action for an infringement of any of an author’s moral rights in respect of a work includes any one or more of the following:

(a)     an injunction (subject to any terms that the court thinks fit);

(b)     damages for loss resulting from the infringement;

(c)     a declaration that a moral right of the author has been infringed;

(d)     an order that the defendant make a public apology for the infringement;

(e)     an order that any false attribution of authorship, or derogatory treatment, of the work be removed or reversed.

(2)     In exercising its discretion as to the appropriate relief to be granted, the court may take into account any of the following:

(a)     whether the defendant was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the author’s moral rights;

(b)     the effect on the author’s honour or reputation resulting from any damage to the work;

(c)     the number, and categories, of people who have seen or heard the work;

(d)     anything done by the defendant to mitigate the effects of the infringement;

(e)     if the moral right that was infringed was a right of attribution of authorship—any cost or difficulty that would have been associated with identifying the author;

(f)     any cost or difficulty in removing or reversing any false attribution of authorship, or derogatory treatment, of the work.

…

(Emphasis added.)

33    The parties did not address me on any of the discretionary factors in s 195AZA(2). In any event, it may be seen that s 195AZA(1)(a) and (e) empowers the Court to grant injunctions in relation to an infringement and make orders to remove or reverse any false attribution of authorship. It is trite to observe that the exercise of such powers is discretionary and to be exercised having regard to the justice of the case and in light of the subject matter, object and purpose of the remedial provisions, having regard to the purpose relating to the grant and infringement of the right in question.

34    Based on my reasons in the Liability Judgment, what matters is that Mr McCallum is attributed as the principal director and that Mr Ngo is not, but in light of my findings, Mr Ngo is nevertheless a director of the Documentary. Having regard to the expert evidence which I accepted on these points, and also in light of the grammatical form, structure and positioning of the credits in the Documentary, I consider that the justice of the case is best served by ensuring that:

(a)    Mr McCallum is attributed as the principal director of the Documentary by a single and separate credit card in the opening and ending credits with the credit “Directed by” (Mr McCallum’s Principal Director Credit);

(b)    Mr Ngo is attributed as a director of the Documentary by a single and separate credit card in the opening and ending credits with the credit “Director” (Mr Ngo’s Director Credit);

(c)    Mr McCallum’s Principal Director Credit appears after Mr Ngo’s Director Credit in the opening credits; and

(d)    Mr McCallum’s Principal Director Credit appears before Mr Ngo’s Director Credit in the closing credits.

35    The effect of the above is to ensure that Mr McCallum is attributed with his credit in a way that is more prominent and prestigious than Mr Ngo in their respective capacities as principal director and director. I do not accept that there is any need for Mr Ngo’s credit to be in the form of “Subsidiary Director”. Although those words appear in the Copyright Act, the effect of my findings at [770]-[775] of the Liability Judgment (based on the expert evidence) was that the credits “Directed by” and “Director”, and their structure and positioning, delineate between a principal director and director. In my view, the reversal of Mr McCallum and Mr Ngo’s directing credits such that Mr McCallum receives the “Directed by” credit in a superior position and Mr Ngo receives the “Director” credit in an inferior position, is sufficient to achieve the justice of the case in light of my reasons in the Liability Judgment.

36    The question of Mr Ngo’s credit as the creator and writer of the Documentary and whether his attribution in that form would diminish Mr McCallum’s role as the principal director of the Documentary was not a pleaded issue in the proceedings. Nor was it canvassed in any great detail in the expert evidence or the parties’ respective submissions. It was not a matter that I was called upon to decide and I did not decide it. The form of Mr Ngo’s credit as a creator and writer of the Documentary and its positioning relative to other credits is not a matter that I could post-fact determine in a dispute about the making of orders, and certainly not when the expert evidence before me was not directed to that question. I do, however, observe that Mr de Heer, who had extensive experience in making films in different capacities, gave some evidence by reference to some of those films that the order of credits may vary from film to film, with the primary concern being that the name of the credit is the thing that tells the viewer who the principal director was, or is: eg see T335.30ff-T337.10ff.

37    Nor was there any evidence before me as to the duration for which a single-director credit should appear on screen relative to multiple-person credits. The respondents’ submissions on this point have evident logic to them. It would be natural that a multiple-person credit would appear on screen for a slightly longer period than a single-person credit, but there was no evidence about these matters. I am prepared to order that each single-person credit card appear on screen for the same duration, but I am not prepared to equate such single-person credit cards with a multi-person credit card.

38    The result of the above is that I will make the following orders:

9.     The First and Second Respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, or howsoever otherwise:

a.     must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary on copies of the Documentary, but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.     must apply to all copies of the Documentary within their control, a credit reading "Directed by Stephen McCallum":

i.     in the opening credits, on the last directing credit card before the title at the beginning of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.     be a single person credit card;

2.     be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card; and

3.     be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

ii.     in the closing credits, on the first directing credit card after the fade-out at the end of the Documentary, such credit card to:

1.     be a single person credit card;

2.     be in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card;

3.     be on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card; and

4.     be in the same position on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

6.    ORDERS FOR THE CORRECTION OF EXISTING COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTARY

39    Mr McCallum seeks that I make orders relating to the correction of existing copies of the Documentary as follows:

11.    The Respondents must, within 14 days of the date of these orders:

a.    provide corrected copies of the Documentary to any person who, to the Respondents’ knowledge, has possession of a copy of the Documentary not having the credits in the form referred to in order 10; and

b.    request from those persons the return of uncorrected copies of the Documentary.

40    The respondents contend that these orders should not be made on the basis that they have only provided copies of the Documentary to the festivals at which it was screened and to the film’s international distributor, Blue Ant International Limited. The respondents submitted that, in circumstances where those festivals have concluded and the respondents will need to provide its distributors with a copy of the Documentary which complies with proposed order 10 above, they say proposed order 11 is futile.

41    Mr McCallum submits that only the respondents know the persons to whom they have provided infringing copies of the Documentary and that he has no assurance that the infringing copies have not been provided to other persons not identified by the respondents. Mr McCallum submits that, given that the respondents are capable of providing corrected copies, they ought to do so.

42    I do not consider that it is appropriate to make an order in the form of proposed order 11 in light of order 9 above. Order 9(a) makes it clear what the respondents are not to do in relation to the attribution of Mr Ngo as a director of the Documentary. Order 9(b) makes it clear what the respondents are to do and not to do in relation to any copies of the Documentary in their control. In light of these orders, I see no utility in making orders in relation to the correction and return of copies of versions of the Documentary that have already screened. I received no evidence as to any present or prospective threat that those versions will be screened again.

7.    INJUNCTION IN RELATION TO CREDITS IN ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS

43    The respondents submit that an order in the following form better reflects my reasons in relation to the findings I made in the Liability Judgment as to the misleading advertising and promotional materials relating to the Documentary:

12.     The First Respondent:

a.     must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary in advertising and promotional material for the Documentary but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.     must ensure that:

i.     all advertising and promotional material for the Documentary published, or caused or authorised to be published, by the First Respondent include the words "Directed by Stephen McCallum" where any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credits appear; and

ii.     where a credit block appears in such advertising and promotional material, those words are to constitute the last directing credit and be in font no smaller than any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credit, or any other credit of the Second Respondent.

44    Mr McCallum seeks the following amendments to the above form of order (with his additions in underline and deletions in strike-through):

12.    The First Respondent:

a.    must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary in advertising and promotional material for the Documentary but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.    must ensure that:

i.    all advertising and promotional material for the Documentary which includes credits of any kind, published, or caused or authorised to be published, by the First Respondent include the words "Directed by Stephen McCallum" where any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credits appear; and

ii.    where a credit block appears in such advertising and promotional material, those words are to constitute the last directing credit and be in font no smaller than any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credit, or any other credit of the Second Respondent.

45    Both parties in effect accepted that the form of proposed order 12(a) would follow from my findings in relation to proposed order 10(a) (now order 9). For the reasons outlined above (see [24]-[38]), I prefer the respondents’ formulation of proposed order 12(a).

46    In relation to proposed order 12(b), the respondents submitted (without reference to any evidence adduced at the trial) that it is common for some types of advertising and promotional material for a film to only credit executive producers (because they are typically well-known in the film industry and their names bring attention to the film), or to credit the executive producers in a larger font so as to attract attention to their names. Mr McCallum submitted that this could be addressed by a carveout for the scenario in which promotional materials refer to executive producers only, but that if left open to extending beyond executive producers (as the respondent’s proposed orders do), the respondents would be permitted to imply that Mr Ngo was a principal director by, for example, publishing promotional material with the only credit being “Created by” or “A documentary by” Mr Ngo. There is considerable force in Mr McCallum’s contentions.

47    In my view, as the only concern that the respondents raised was in relation to identification of the executive producers, it is appropriate to make an order in the form proposed by Mr McCallum with the following amendments:

(a)    a carveout in relation to executive producers; and

(b)    the inclusion of the qualifier “directing” in the respondents’ proposed order 12(b)(ii) which reflects my findings in relation to order 9(b) above.

48    Accordingly, I will make the following orders:

10.    The First Respondent:

a.    must not identify the Second Respondent as a principal director of the Documentary in advertising and promotional material for the Documentary but may identify the Second Respondent with the term “director” provided the Applicant is credited in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below; and

b.    must ensure that:

i.    all advertising and promotional material for the Documentary which includes credits of any kind, published, or caused or authorised to be published, by the First Respondent include the words "Directed by Stephen McCallum" except where that material only contains credits for executive producers; and

ii.    where a credit block appears in such advertising and promotional material, those words are to constitute the last directing credit and be in font no smaller than any other director or producer (other than executive producer) credit, or any other credit of the Second Respondent.

8.    ORDERS IN RELATION TO THE PROGRESS OF THE BALANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

49    Mr McCallum submits that, as an immediate next step, the Court should determine costs consequent on the Liability Judgment, the publishing of an apology and corrective advertising, and interest on the director’s fee. These steps, he says, should not await the determination of his claim for damages, as nothing that happens in that phase could affect that relief, or an appeal, as it is desirable that any appeal address all issues arising from the Liability Judgment.

50    The Respondents’ position is that the timing of when these matters ought to be dealt with should be determined after the appeal period has ended.

51    I do not accept either parties’ contentions. This matter has gone on long enough. It has been bitterly contested by the parties in a way that I have already commented upon in the Liability Judgment. Mr McCallum’s proposal has the effect of requiring the Court to make two further determinations in these proceedings. In my view, such an approach falls foul of the essential dictates of case management in this Court. The respondents’ proposal sees them delaying further the resolution of the issues absent any application for a stay of proceedings or orders pending any appeal they may bring. The Liability Judgment was published on 27 February 2026, following which the parties were unable to agree on orders and that itself has required two further case management hearings, further written submissions and a further determination by the Court. I would expect the respondents to have by now a well-considered position as to instituting an appeal and seeking a stay of orders.

52    I will make the following orders:

(a)    the applicant is to file any further evidence and submissions in support of the balance of the claims of relief sought in the Amended Originating Application together with the issue of costs of and incidental to the Liability Judgment on or by 22 June 2026;

(b)    the respondents are to file any evidence and submissions in reply on or by 20 July 2026;

(c)    the applicant is to file any evidence and submissions in reply on or by 3 August 2026;

(d)    the matter will be listed for case management at 9.30 am on 11 August 2026 with a view to fixing the remaining issues for hearing at a time convenient to the Court; and

(e)    the parties have liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

9.    OTHER ORDERS NOT IN DISPUTE

53    Other orders proposed by parties, namely orders 1-4, 6-8 and 11, were not in dispute between them. I am satisfied they are appropriate orders to be made.

10.    DISPOSITION

54    I will make orders reflecting these reasons.

Associate:

Dated:    26 May 2026