Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390

1. The applicants be granted leave to file a further amended originating application in the form provided to the Court on 12 November 2025.
2. Each respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these orders (and thereafter within 15 business days of an obligation to disable access to a Domain Name, IP Address or URL arising under order 13 of these orders), take reasonable steps to disable access to the Target Online Locations.
3. Order 2 is taken to have been complied with by a respondent if that respondent implements any one or more of the following steps:

(a) DNS Blocking in respect of the Target Domain Names;

(b) IP Address blocking or re-routing in respect of the Target IP Addresses;

(c) URL blocking in respect of the Target URLs and the Target Domain Names; or

(d) any alternative technical means for disabling access to the Target Online Locations as agreed in writing between the applicants and a respondent.

1. If a respondent in complying with Order 2 of these orders does not implement any of the steps referred to in Order 3 of these orders, that respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these orders, notify the applicants of the step or steps it has implemented.

1. Each respondent must use reasonable efforts to redirect any communication by a user of its service seeking access to the Target Online Locations which has been disabled pursuant to Order 2 of these orders to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by either:

(a) the applicants, or their nominee, pursuant to Order 6 of these orders; or

(b) that respondent or its nominee.

The applicants' obligations pursuant to Orders 6 and 7 of these orders only arise if a respondent notifies the applicants that the respondent will redirect a communication pursuant to Order 5(a) of these orders and for so long as at least one respondent redirects communications to that webpage.

1. The applicants, or their nominee, must establish, maintain and host a webpage which informs users of a respondent's service who have been redirected to the webpage pursuant to Order 5 of these orders that access to the website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.
2. Within 5 business days of these orders, the applicants will notify each of the Respondents in writing of the URL of the webpage established, maintained and hosted under Order 5(a) of these orders and, if the webpage ceases to operate for any reason, will notify each of the respondents in writing of a different URL that complies with Order 6 of these orders.
3. If, in complying with Order 5(b) of these orders, a respondent redirects any communication by a user of its service to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by it, that respondent or its nominee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that the webpage informs the user of that respondent's service that access to that website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.

Permanent ceasing of to enable or facilitate practice or satisfying the primary purpose or Primary Effect

1. In the event that any of the applicants has a good faith belief that:

(a) any Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name which is subject to these Orders has permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to any Target Online Location; or

(b) any Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name has permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright,

a representative of the applicants must, within 15 business days of any of the applicants forming such a good faith belief, notify each respondent of that fact in writing, in which case the respondents shall no longer be required to take steps pursuant to Order 2 of these orders to disable access to the relevant Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name that is the subject of the notice.

Temporarily declining or ceasing preventing of access

1. A respondent will not be in breach of Order 2 of these orders if it temporarily declines or temporarily ceases to take the steps ordered in Order 2 of these orders (either in whole or in part) upon forming the view, on reasonable grounds, that suspension is necessary to:

(a) maintain the integrity of its network or systems or functioning of its blocking system;

(b) upgrade, troubleshoot or maintain its blocking system;

(c) avert or respond to an imminent security threat to its network or systems; or

(d) ensure its ability to block access to online locations associated with criminal content or its ability to comply with its statutory obligations, including under s 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), is not impaired,

(e) unless precluded by law, it notifies the applicants or their legal representative(s) of such suspension, including the reasons and the expected duration of such suspension, by 5.00 pm on the next business day; and

(f) such suspension lasts no longer than is reasonably necessary and, in any case, no longer than 3 business days or such period as the applicants may agree in writing or the Court may allow.

1. The owner or operator of any of the Target Online Locations and the owner or operator of any website who claims to be affected by these orders may apply on 3 days' written notice to the Court and all parties to this proceeding, to vary or discharge these orders, with any such application to:

(a) set out the orders sought by the owner or operator of the Target Online Locations or affected website; and

(b) be supported by evidence as to:

(i) the status of the owner or operator of the Target Online Locations or affected website; and

(ii) the basis upon which the variation or discharge is sought.

1. The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days' written notice, including for the purpose of any application:

(a) for further orders to give effect to the terms of these orders;

(b) for further orders in the event of any material change of circumstances including, without limitation, in respect of the consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the technical methods under Order 3 of these orders;

(c) for orders relating to other means of accessing the Target Online Locations not covered by these orders; and/or

(d) for an order in this proceeding extending the operation of these orders.

Target Online Location accessible from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL

1. If the applicants and their solicitor form a good faith belief that a website the subject of any of the Target Online Locations is at any time during the operation of these orders provided from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL outside Australia:

(a) the applicants may, by their solicitor, file and serve a notice in writing to the respondents and the Court that:

(i) identifies the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL; and

(ii) certifies that, in the good faith belief of the Applicants and their solicitor, the website operated from the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL is a new location for any of the Target Online Locations the subject of these orders, and provides brief reasons therefor;

(b) within 7 business days of the notice given pursuant to Order 13(a) of these orders, the respondents must notify the applicants and the Court in writing if they object to taking steps pursuant to Order 2 of these orders to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 13(a) of these orders;

(c) if any respondent objects to disabling a Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 13(a) of these orders, or the Court otherwise considers it appropriate to do so, the proceeding will be relisted for further directions; and

(d) if, within the time period specified in Order 13(b) of these orders, no respondent objects to disabling access to any Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 13(a) of these orders and the Court does not otherwise require the proceeding to be relisted, then upon receipt of a notification from the applicants that the Court does not require the matter to be relisted, that respondents must take steps pursuant to Order 2 of these orders to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 13(a) of these orders.

New Target Online Location associated with existing Target Online Locations

1. The applicants have leave to file and serve an amended originating application seeking further orders (New Target Online Location Orders) in respect of any additional target online location (New Target Online Locations) that appears to the applicants' solicitors to be associated with any of the Target Online Locations (based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator) and making available online or facilitating access to the same or substantially the same content that the Target Online Location is or was previously making available online.
2. Subject to any further order or direction, the leave granted under Order 14 of these orders continues to apply for the duration of these orders.
3. Subject to any further order or direction, if the applicants file any amended originating application pursuant to Order 14 of these orders, then the following shall apply:

(a) the applicants must serve on the respondents a copy of the amended originating application together with any supporting affidavit evidence to be relied on in support of the application for the New Target Online Location Orders within 7 days of filing the amended originating application;

(b) the applicants must give notice of their application for the New Target Online Location Orders in accordance with the requirements of s 115A(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);

(c) any respondent who wishes to be heard in relation to the New Target Online Location Orders must notify the applicants and the Court within 5 business days of being served in accordance with Order 1616(a) of these orders;

(d) if no notice is given by any respondent in accordance with Order 1616(c) of these orders, then the applicants may approach the Court for the purpose of seeking the New Target Online Location Orders and the Court may in its discretion, consider and determine the application for the New Target Online Location Orders on the papers without further notice and without any oral hearing.

1. These orders are to operate for a period of 3 years from the date of these orders.
2. If an applicant makes an application under Order 12(d) of these orders to extend the period of operation of these orders, the following procedure applies:

(a) the application must be made at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the operation of the orders by filing a minute of the orders sought together with a solicitor's certification in accordance with (b) below;

(b) a solicitor on behalf of the applicant must certify that:

(i) within the 6 weeks prior to the application, the solicitor or another representative of the applicant has attempted to access each Target Online Location via each Target Domain Name;

(ii) following the exercise in (b)(i) above, the solicitor has a good faith belief that each Target Online Location that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright, and that each Target Domain Name, Target URL or Target IP Address that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to a Target Online Location; and

(iii) the applicant has given the respondents at least 7 days' notice of the application;

(c) the accompanying minute of order may specify any Target Domain Names, Target URLs or Target IP addresses that are excluded from the application;

(d) within 7 days of receiving notice of the application, any respondent objecting to the extension of these orders must notify the applicant and the Court in writing of the objection and the reasons therefor;

(e) if any respondent objects in accordance with (d) above, the proceeding will be relisted for directions, unless the Court otherwise orders;

(f) if no respondent gives notice of any objection, then the Court may make orders in terms of the applicant's minute without any further hearing;

(g) the applicant must serve on the respondents any such orders made; and

(h) the applicant must attempt to give each relevant Target Online Location notice of the orders made by sending an email to one email address identified by such Location as providing a means to contact its operator or administrator (if any is identified), further notifying the operator or administrator that it may seek to vary or set aside such orders upon the filing of a notice of appearance with the Court and an appropriate application, supported by affidavit evidence.

Disabling access to Urgent Target Online Locations

1. Telstra, Vocus, TPG Telecom, Aussie Broadband and Superloop must by 10.00 am on Tuesday, 18 November 2025, take reasonable steps to disable access to the Urgent Target Online Locations.
2. Optus must, by 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, take reasonable steps to disable access to the Urgent Target Online Locations.
3. Each of Orders 19 and 20 of these orders is taken to have been complied with by the relevant respondent if that respondent implements any one or more of the following steps:

(a) DNS Blocking in respect of the Urgent Target Domain Names;

(b) IP Address blocking or re-routing in respect of the Urgent Target IP Addresses;

(c) URL blocking in respect of the Urgent Target URLs and the Urgent Target Domain Names; or

(d) any alternative technical means for disabling access to the Urgent Target Online Locations as agreed in writing between the applicants and a respondent.

1. If a respondent in complying with Orders 19 and 20 of these orders does not implement any of the steps referred to in Order 21 of these orders, that respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these orders, notify the applicants of the step or steps it has implemented.

1. Each respondent must use reasonable efforts to redirect any communication by a user of its service seeking access to the Urgent Target Online Locations which has been disabled pursuant to Orders 19 or 20 of these orders to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by either:

(a) the applicants, or their nominee, pursuant to Order 24 of these orders; or

(b) that respondent or its nominee.

The applicants' obligations pursuant to Orders 24 and 25 of these orders only arise if a respondent notifies the applicants that the respondent will redirect a communication pursuant to Order 23(a) of these orders and for so long as at least one respondent redirects communications to that webpage.

1. The applicants, or their nominee, must establish, maintain and host a webpage which informs users of a respondent's service who have been redirected to the webpage pursuant to Order 23 of these orders that access to the website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.
2. Within 5 business days of these orders, the applicants will notify each of the respondents in writing of the URL of the webpage established, maintained and hosted under Order 23(a) of these orders and, if the webpage ceases to operate for any reason, will notify each of the respondents in writing of a different URL that complies with Order 24 of these orders.
3. If, in complying with Order 23(b) of these orders, a respondent redirects any communication by a user of its service to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by it, that respondent or its nominee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that the webpage informs the user of that respondent's service that access to that website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.

Permanent ceasing of to enable or facilitate practice or satisfying the primary purpose or Primary Effect

1. In the event that any of the applicants has a good faith belief that:

(a) any Urgent Target URL, Urgent Target IP Address or Urgent Target Domain Name which is subject to these orders has permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to any Urgent Target Online Location; or

(b) any Urgent Target URL, Urgent Target IP Address or Urgent Target Domain Name has permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright,

a representative of the applicants must, within 15 business days of any of the applicants forming such a good faith belief, notify each respondent of that fact in writing, in which case the respondents shall no longer be required to take steps pursuant to Orders 19 or 20 of these orders to disable access to the relevant Urgent Target URL, Urgent Target IP Address or Urgent Target Domain Name that is the subject of the notice.

Temporarily declining or ceasing preventing of access

1. A respondent will not be in breach of Orders 19 or 20 of these orders if it temporarily declines or temporarily ceases to take the steps ordered Orders 19 or 20 of these orders (either in whole or in part) upon forming the view, on reasonable grounds, that suspension is necessary to:

(a) maintain the integrity of its network or systems or functioning of its blocking system;

(b) upgrade, troubleshoot or maintain its blocking system;

(c) avert or respond to an imminent security threat to its network or systems; or

(d) ensure its ability to block access to online locations associated with criminal content or its ability to comply with its statutory obligations, including under s 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), is not impaired,

(e) unless precluded by law, it notifies the applicants or their legal representative(s) of such suspension, including the reasons and the expected duration of such suspension, by 5.00 pm on the next business day; and

(f) such suspension lasts no longer than is reasonably necessary and, in any case, no longer than 3 business days or such period as the applicants may agree in writing or the Court may allow.

1. The owner or operator of any of the Urgent Target Online Locations and the owner or operator of any website who claims to be affected by these orders may apply on 3 days' written notice to the Court and all parties to this proceeding, to vary or discharge these orders, with any such application to:

(a) set out the orders sought by the owner or operator of the Urgent Target Online Locations or affected website; and

(b) be supported by evidence as to:

(i) the status of the owner or operator of the Urgent Target Online Locations or affected website; and

(ii) the basis upon which the variation or discharge is sought.

1. The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days' written notice, including for the purpose of any application:

(a) for further orders to give effect to the terms of these orders;

(b) for further orders in the event of any material change of circumstances including, without limitation, in respect of the consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the technical methods under Order 21 of these orders;

(c) for orders relating to other means of accessing the Urgent Target Online Locations not covered by these orders; and/or

(d) for an order in this proceeding extending the operation of these orders.

Urgent Target Online Location accessible from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL

1. If the applicants and their solicitor form a good faith belief that a website the subject of any of the Urgent Target Online Locations is at any time during the operation of these orders provided from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL outside Australia:

(a) the applicants may, by their solicitor, file and serve a notice in writing to the respondents and the Court that:

(i) identifies the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL; and

(ii) certifies that, in the good faith belief of the applicants and their solicitor, the website operated from the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL is a new location for any of the Urgent Target Online Locations the subject of these orders, and provides brief reasons therefor;

(b) within 7 business days of the notice given pursuant to Order 31(a) of these orders, the respondents must notify the applicants and the Court in writing if they object to taking steps pursuant to Orders 19 or 20 of these orders to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 31(a) of these orders;

(c) if any respondent objects to disabling a Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 31(a) of these orders, or the Court otherwise considers it appropriate to do so, the proceeding will be relisted for further directions; and

(d) if, within the time period specified in Order 31(b) of these orders, no respondent objects to disabling access to any Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 31(a) of these orders and the Court does not otherwise require the proceeding to be relisted, then upon receipt of a notification from the applicants that the Court does not require the matter to be relisted, that respondents must take steps pursuant to Orders 19 or 20 of these orders to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 31(a) of these orders within 15 business days of receipt of the notification from the applicants.

New Target Online Location associated with existing Urgent Target Online Locations

1. The applicants have leave to file and serve an amended originating application seeking further orders (New Target Online Location Orders) in respect of any additional target online location (New Target Online Locations) that appears to the applicants' solicitors to be associated with any of the Urgent Target Online Locations (based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator) and making available online or facilitating access to the same or substantially the same content that the Urgent Target Online Location is or was previously making available online.
2. Subject to any further order or direction, the leave granted under Order 32 of these orders continues to apply for the duration of these orders.
3. Subject to any further order or direction, if the applicants file any amended originating application pursuant to Order 32 of these orders, then the following shall apply:

(a) the applicants must serve on the respondents a copy of the amended originating application together with any supporting affidavit evidence to be relied on in support of the application for the New Target Online Location Orders within 7 days of filing the amended originating application;

(b) the applicants must give notice of their application for the New Target Online Location Orders in accordance with the requirements of s 115A(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);

(c) any respondent who wishes to be heard in relation to the New Target Online Location Orders must notify the applicants and the Court within 5 business days of being served in accordance with Order 34(a) of these orders;

(d) if no notice is given by any respondent in accordance with Order 34(c) of these orders, then the applicants may approach the Court for the purpose of seeking the New Target Online Location Orders and the Court may in its discretion, consider and determine the application for the New Target Online Location orders on the papers without further notice and without any oral hearing.

1. These orders are to operate for a period of 3 years from the date of these Orders.
2. If an applicant makes an application under Order 30(d) of these orders to extend the period of operation of these orders, the following procedure applies:

(a) the application must be made at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the operation of the orders by filing a minute of the orders sought together with a solicitor's certification in accordance with (b) below;

(b) a solicitor on behalf of the applicant must certify that:

(i) within the 6 weeks prior to the application, the solicitor or another representative of the applicant has attempted to access each Target Online Location via each Urgent Target Domain Name;

(ii) following the exercise in (b)(i) above, the solicitor has a good faith belief that each Target Online Location that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright, and that each Urgent Target Domain Name, Urgent Target URL or Urgent Target IP Address that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to a Urgent Target Online Location; and

(iii) the applicant has given the respondents at least 7 days' notice of the application;

(c) the accompanying minute of order may specify any Urgent Target Domain Names, Urgent Target URLs or Urgent Target IP addresses that are excluded from the application;

(d) within 7 days of receiving notice of the application, any respondent objecting to the extension of these orders must notify the applicant and the Court in writing of the objection and the reasons therefor;

(e) if any respondent objects in accordance with (d) above, the proceeding will be relisted for directions, unless the Court otherwise orders;

(f) if no respondent gives notice of any objection, then the Court may make orders in terms of the applicant's minute without any further hearing;

(g) the applicant must serve on the respondents any such orders made; and

(h) the applicant must attempt to give each relevant Urgent Target Online Location notice of the orders made by sending an email to one email address identified by such Location as providing a means to contact its operator or administrator (if any is identified), further notifying the operator or administrator that it may seek to vary or set aside such orders upon the filing of a notice of appearance with the Court and an appropriate application, supported by affidavit evidence.

1. The applicants pay Telstra's, Optus', Vocus', TPG Telecom's, Aussie Broadband's and Superloop's compliance costs calculated at the rate of $50 per Domain Name the subject of DNS Blocking undertaken for the purposes of complying with Orders 19 or 20 of these orders.

1. The applicants pay Telstra's, Optus', Vocus', TPG Telecom's, Aussie Broadband's and Superloop's compliance costs calculated at the rate of $50 per Domain Name the subject of DNS Blocking undertaken for the purposes of complying with Order 2 of these orders.
2. There be no order as to costs.

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

PRIMUS NETWORK (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 109 142 216)

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 071 191 396)

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 061 754 943)

WHOLESALE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 109 626 011)

SOUL PATTINSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 726 192)

SPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED (ACN 099 173 770)

TRANSACT CAPITAL COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 093 966 888)

TRANSACT VICTORIA COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 063 024 475)

1. Before me today is an expedited hearing of an application commenced by an originating application and statement of claim for orders under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) for site blocking and ancillary orders with respect to 52 target online locations (Target Online Locations). The hearing has been expedited because of the applicants' concerns about the likely imminent pirating of the movie "Wicked: For Good", the sequel to "Wicked", which is to be released internationally on 17 November 2025 at approximately 3.00 pm Pacific Standard Time (10.00 am on 18 December 2025 Australian Eastern Daylight Time).
2. The respondents, other than Optus, have consented to orders requiring them to take reasonable steps to disable access to 23 of the Target Online Locations (Urgent Target Online Locations) before the international release of "Wicked: For Good". The Urgent Target Online Locations are Target Online Locations that: (a) are promoting their imminent pirating of "Wicked: For Good", or are already offering "Wicked", giving rise to a strong inference that they will also offer "Wicked: For Good", and (b) have high internet traffic numbers, so that blocking access to them is likely to have the most impact on piracy of "Wicked: For Good". Optus has consented to orders requiring them to take reasonable steps to disable access to the Urgent Target Online Locations by 4.00 pm on 19 November 2025.
3. The applicants also seek orders that the respondents block the remaining 29 Target Online Locations (Standard Target Online Locations) within the usual timeframe in previous applications under s 115A of the Act of 15 business days. The respondents have not consented to these orders, but no respondent has indicated, as is expected in applications of this nature, that it opposes the making of the orders with respect to the Standard Target Online Locations. The need for these orders is not as urgent as for the Urgent Target Online Locations. Nevertheless, I consider that the more efficient course, consistently with the overarching purpose and the interests of justice, is for the hearing of these applications also to be determined today on an expedited basis, not least because at least 12 of the Standard Target Online Locations offer "Wicked", from which one can readily infer that they are likely to also attempt to offer its sequel, "Wicked: For Good", and some have already indicated that they intend to offer "Wicked: For Good".
4. The applicants rely on the following evidence:

(a) three affidavits of Andrew Gavin Stewart, the solicitor on the record for the applicants;

(b) an affidavit of Renata Boris, a law graduate, acting under the supervision of Mr Stewart;

(c) an affidavit of Jackson Ion Moir, a paralegal, acting under the supervision of Mr Stewart;

(d) a bundle of emails between the solicitors for the applicants and the respondents in which each of the respondents has confirmed that they consent to the making of the orders with respect to the Urgent Target Online Locations and do not oppose orders with respect to the Standard Target Online Locations.

1. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the orders sought by the applicants pursuant to s 115A of the Act and ancillary orders should be made.

1. The applicants are each engaged in the creation, distribution, licensing, and/or marketing of theatrical motion pictures, television programming, videos/DVDs, Blu-ray discs, digital downloads and related products throughout the world, including in Australia.
2. The respondents are carriage service providers. The respondents comprise the first respondent (Telstra), the second to eighth respondents (Optus), the ninth to sixteenth, twentieth to twenty-third and twenty-fifth respondents (Vocus), the twenty-sixth to forty-fourth respondents (TPG Telecom), the forty-fifth respondent (Aussie Broadband) and the forty-sixth to fifty-first respondents (Superloop).
3. Optus, Aussie Broadband and Superloop have all filed submitting notices. TPG Telecom has been served but has not filed an address for service or a submitting notice, contrary to the orders made by the Court on 5 November 2025.
4. Telstra appeared at the initial case management hearing but has subsequently advised the Court that it consents to the orders sought by the applicants and did not wish to be heard at the hearing. None of the other respondents has sought to be heard in this proceeding.
5. The cinematograph films relied on by the applicants (Cinematograph Films) are listed in Schedule 2 to the statement of claim.
6. The applicants rely on the presumptions in s 126 and s 131 of the Act and on deemed admissions as to ownership of copyright. Although it is strictly not necessary, Mr Stewart also gives evidence of the applicants' ownership of copyright in the Cinematograph Films on information and belief.

C. GRANT OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 115A OF THE ACT

115A Injunctions relating to online locations outside Australia

Application for an injunction

(1) The owner of a copyright may apply to the Federal Court of Australia to grant an injunction that requires a carriage service provider to take such steps as the Court considers reasonable to disable access to an online location outside Australia that:

(a) infringes, or facilitates an infringement, of the copyright; and

(b) has the primary purpose or the primary effect of infringing, or facilitating an infringement, of copyright (whether or not in Australia).

Granting the injunction

(2A) The Court may grant the injunction in the terms, and subject to the conditions, that the Court considers appropriate.

...

(2B) Without limiting subsection (2A), the injunction may:

(a) require the carriage service provider to take reasonable steps to do either or both of the following:

(i) block domain names, URLs and IP addresses that provide access to the online location and that are specified in the injunction;

(ii) block domain names, URLs and IP addresses that the carriage service provider and the owner of the copyright agree, in writing, have started to provide access to the online location after the injunction is made; and

1. Section 115A(4) of the Act permits the Court to dispense with service on the carriage service provider, online search engine provider and the operator of the online location on such terms as it thinks fit, if the Court is satisfied that the owner of copyright is unable, despite reasonable efforts, to determine the identity or address of the person who operates the online location, or to send notices to that person.
2. The target online locations that are alleged by the applicants to infringe or facilitate infringement of copyright in the Cinematograph Films are identified by Ms Beris and Mr Moir in tables in the annexures to their affidavits (Target Online Locations). They fall into a single class of locations known as "streaming", "torrenting", and "linking" locations. This class of locations has been the subject of previous applications under s 115A of the Act.
3. The Target Online Locations are accessible at identified target uniform resource locations (Target URLs), which incorporate identified target domain names (Target Domain Names) and at identified target internet protocol addresses (Target IP Addresses). The URLs, domain names, and IP addresses for each of the Target Online Locations are set out in tables in the annexures to the affidavits of Ms Beris and Mr Moir.
4. There are two types of Target Domain Names, being (a) "primary" domain names, which are the main locations that provide the functionality complained of by the applicants, and (b) "secondary" domain names, which redirect users to corresponding primary domain names.
5. The applicants rely on the presumption in s 115A(5A) of the Act that in proceedings for an injunction under s 115A, the online location is presumed to be outside Australia, unless the contrary is established. The applicants also rely on searches undertaken by Mr Moir that show that each of the Target IP Addresses was registered or created, and each of the Target Domain Names was registered, overseas.
6. Ms Beris and Mr Moir give evidence that (a) they visited all of the Target Online Locations and noted which of the Cinematograph Films were available at each location, (b) for each location, they then navigated to a link to at least one of the Cinematograph Films, then, (c) depending on the type of the online location, streamed or downloaded the film, and (d) in each case, they watched certain parts of the film and confirmed that it was a true copy of the film in question.
7. Further, Ms Beris and Mr Moir give evidence that, when they visited each of the target online locations, they found that (a) their primary service was to provide simple access online without charge to motion pictures and television programmes, with the exception of one of the Target Online Locations, which did include a charge for accessing the material, (b) each location made available large numbers of other motion pictures and television programmes, and (c) the majority of them carried advertising.
8. I am satisfied that this evidence establishes that the primary purpose or effect of each of the Target Online Locations is to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright in one or more of the Cinematograph Films.
9. I can readily infer from the evidence given by Ms Beris and Mr Moir summarised above that the applicants have not granted any licence or consent to the owners or operators of the Target Online Locations to copy or communicate the Cinematograph Films: see Foxtel Management Pty Limited v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2017) 126 IPR 579; [2017] FCA 1041 at [117] (Burley J); Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 933 at [12] (Nicholas J). There is also evidence to this effect from Mr Stewart on information and belief.
10. I am satisfied that the evidence relied upon by the applicants establishes that each of the Target Online Locations infringes copyright in one or more of the Cinematograph Films.
11. The matters to be taken into account in determining whether to exercise the Court's discretion to grant an injunction are relevantly identified in s 115A(5) of the Act, which provides:

(5) In determining whether to grant the injunction, the Court may take the following matters into account:

(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement, as referred to in paragraph (1)(b);

(b) whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;

(c) whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;

(d) whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;

(e) whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(ea) if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider--whether not providing search results that refer users to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(f) the impact on any person, or class of persons, likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction;

(g) whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location;

(ga) if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider--whether it is in the public interest not to provide search results that refer users to the online location;

(h) whether the owner of the copyright complied with subsection (4);

(i) any other remedies available under this Act;

(j) any other matter prescribed by the regulations;

(k) any other relevant matter.

1. I am satisfied that the evidence relied upon by the applicants has established the following matters that weigh heavily in favour of the exercise of the discretion to grant an injunction under s 115A of the Act.
2. First, by reason of the matters identified above, the infringement of copyright at each of the Target Online Locations can be appropriately characterised as flagrant.
3. Second, the Target Online Locations are simple to use. They offer large catalogues of infringing material, and most of them make money by displaying advertising to users.
4. Third, a significant majority of the Target Online Locations have directories, indexes or categories of motion pictures and television programs.
5. Fourth, the operators of the Target Online Locations also display a disregard for copyright generally. Many include statements about copyright compliance, claiming to have copyright, yet they offer large catalogues of infringing material, and most of them make money by displaying advertising to users.
6. Fifth, the operators have been substantially unresponsive to notifications about their infringing conduct.
7. Sixth, on 29 September 2025, a commercial court in Barcelona made orders in relation to various domain names, including two of the Target Online Locations.
8. I am also satisfied the applicants have complied with the notification requirements in s 115A(4) of the Act as far as is reasonably possible. They have notified the carriage service providers and they have exerted reasonable efforts to notify the operators of the Target Online Locations. The applicants' solicitors sent notices about the proceedings by email and post to the addresses identified at the Target Online Locations and also to addresses identified in the domain name and IP address searches. Where the Target Online Locations had web forms, the applicants' solicitors navigated there and attempted to complete the forms.
9. Generally, the owners or operators of the Target Online Locations did not respond. When they did, the responses were largely not substantive. Most were automated responses from hosting services and domain-name registrars. No owner or operator has appeared at the hearing.
10. I am satisfied that other remedies are not reasonably available to the applicants because the Target Online Locations are located outside of Australia. Given the volume and flagrancy of the infringement, I am satisfied that disabling access to the Target Online Locations is a proportionate response and that it is in the public interest. There is no evidence or indication that there will be any impact on any person or class of persons likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction, except that users will not be able to access infringing material, and the operators of the sites will be deprived of visits by Australian users.

1. The orders sought by the applicants with respect to the Standard Target Online Locations are substantially in the same form as the orders made in recent applications under s 115A of the Act, involving similar applicants and respondents: see most recently Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744 (Younan J) and Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 1388 (Cheeseman J).
2. The orders sought by the applicants with respect to the Urgent Target Online Locations are also substantially in the form of the orders made in recent applications under s 115A of the Act, involving similar applicants and respondents other than providing for a truncated period in which the respondents must implement the blocks of the Urgent Target Online Locations.
3. In my view, this is an appropriate case for making the site blocking and ancillary orders sought by the applicants, and orders to that effect will be made.

I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Halley.