Brown v Edwards

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant in this proceeding, Robert Geoffrey Brown, claims to be the author of certain unnamed songs and alleges that the respondents have "infringed my copyrights by default of non payment of royaltys [sic] due". In his application he claims payment of royalties to the end of the financial year 2001. He also claims "payments due by assingment of exclusive licence to market" and "all other moneys owed to the copyright owner". The affidavit which in accordance with O 14 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules he seeks to support his application states: "1. The material facts of this claim is neither scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, as the truth is neither oppresive, scandolous, or vexatious, in this year 2002. The nature of this my affidavit. I, swear, as a infringment a infringment of my copyright my copyright as author, author of the song titles, and song lyrics published Marketed, by exclusive licence to Universal Music Australia, Proprietry Limited in conjunction with a pyramid of bottom off the harbour companys. Whom have infringed my copyrights by default of non payment of royaltys due." 2 This is not the first time that the applicant has made such an application. Previously he has made applications in the South Australian and Western Australian District Registries of this Court. The applications filed in the South Australia District Registry were considered by von Doussa J who, on 16 August 2001, ordered that the statements of claim be struck out and that the proceedings against the respondents be dismissed; [2001] FCA 1169. An appeal from von Doussa J was dismissed by a Full Court on 22 November 2001 for reasons given on 5 December 2001; [2001] FCA 1659. The judgment of the Full Court states: "The failings of the statements of claim dismissed by the primary judge are so fundamental that it is obvious that the matter could not proceed on those pleadings. Moreover transcripts of the various hearings before the primary judge show that his Honour was extraordinarily patient with the appellant and attempted many times to explain to him the problems with his pleadings and to indicate what was required. In our opinion his Honour's judgment is clearly correct and there is no basis on which an appeal against it could succeed." 3 In relation to the application filed in the Western Australia District Registry of this Court, Carr J stated that the documents filed by the applicant did not disclose any factual basis for any course of action. His Honour continued: "The matter simply cannot proceed on the basis of the documents filed. It would seem that the applicant is seeking some relief under the Copyright Act against the first-named respondent in respect of the two songs referred to above. He sought similar relief in respect of a different song against the same first-named respondent in the South Australia proceedings being application No S29 of 2001 which was struck out with an appeal from that order being dismissed by the Full Court. So, apart from not disclosing any reasonable cause of action, I consider that the institution of these proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. I also infer, from the comments made by the applicant at the directions hearing on 8 March 2002 … that the applicant chose to bring this application in Western Australia rather than apply to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal against the Full Court's decision. That too, in my view, amounts to an abuse of process. For those reasons, application No W576 of 2001 will be dismissed." 4 In relation to the other application, W40 of 2002 his Honour similarly commented: "I consider that this application (No W40 of 2002) is an abuse of the process of the Court by reason of the history of application No S30 of 2001. Furthermore, in my view, no reasonable cause of action is disclosed by the documents as filed by the applicant. I do not think that there is any reasonable prospect of the applicant being able to cure the defects in those documents. I refer to the efforts made by von Doussa J to explain to the applicant what was required in the principal South Australian proceedings - see also the reasons of the Full Court in that matter Brown v Edwards (alias Shania Twain) [2001] FCA 1659 at par [13]. There will be an order that application No W40 of 2002 be dismissed." 5 In my opinion this application is also an abuse of process. I also do not think that there is any reasonable prospect of the applicant being able to cure the defects apparent in the application and affidavit filed in this proceeding. For those reasons the application must be dismissed. I do not propose to make any order as to costs. However, as the respondents were not given an opportunity to address me on this matter I give them leave to apply within 5 days from the date of publication of these reasons if they wish to be heard as to the question of costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone .