Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited

Disabling access to Additional Urgent Target Access Means

1. Each respondent must take reasonable steps to disable access to the Additional Urgent Access Means by 4.00 pm on Friday, 28 November 2025 (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 the 12 November Orders).
2. Orders 21 to 37 and 39 of the 12 November Orders apply to the Additional Urgent Access Means in the same manner as the Urgent Target Online Locations.

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)

https://www5.hdtodaytv.tv

https://ww1.0123movie.co.com

1. Before me today is an urgent application commenced by the applicants for orders disabling access to new means of access to certain Urgent Target Online Locations and Standard Target Online Locations (Additional Urgent Access Means).
2. On 12 November 2025, I made site-blocking and ancillary orders in this proceeding with respect to 52 Target Online Locations pursuant to s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) (12 November orders) and published ex tempore reasons for making those orders: Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390 (12 November judgment).
3. These reasons for judgment, and in particular the defined terms used in these reasons, are to be read in conjunction with the 12 November 2025 judgment.
4. The applicants rely on an affidavit of Andrew Gavin Stewart affirmed 24 November 2025, specified paragraphs of an affidavit of Andrew Gavin Stewart affirmed 10 November 2025, an affidavit of Jackson Ion Moir affirmed 24 November 2025, and emails the applicants tendered from representatives of TPG Telecom and Vocus to the applicants' solicitors.
5. The 12 November orders included orders requiring each of Telstra, Vocus, TPG Telecom, Aussie Broadband and Superloop to take reasonable steps to disable access to the Urgent Target Online Locations by 10.00 am on Tuesday, 18 November 2025, and for Optus to take reasonable steps to disable access to the Urgent Target Online Locations by 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 19 November 2025.
6. Mr Stewart gives evidence that on 18 and 19 November 2025, he instructed Mr Moir, a summer clerk employed by Baker McKenzie, the solicitors for the applicants, to review the implementation of the 12 November orders. Mr Stewart also gives evidence that it is apparent from his review of the inquiries undertaken by Mr Moir and other employees of Baker McKenzie under his supervision that, subject to relatively minor exceptions, the respondents have substantially complied with the 12 November orders.
7. During the review undertaken by Mr Moir, he identified a number of Urgent Target Online Locations and Standard Target Online Locations that were being made available from different domain names, URLs and IP addresses, which appeared to have the same or substantially the same name, branding and content as the Urgent Target Online Locations and Standard Target Online Locations from which each was redirected and appeared to make available the cinematographic film "Wicked: For Good".
8. Mr Stewart gives evidence that the film "Wicked: For Good" is likely to remain in theatres in Australia until approximately 30 to 45 calendar days from its initial release in Australia on 20 November 2025. It is, therefore, likely that it will remain in theatres for the remainder of the 2025 calendar year in Australia.
9. Mr Stewart also gives evidence, which I accept given his extensive experience in applications under s 115A of the Act, that when orders are made under that section requiring carriage service providers to disable access to target online locations, some target online locations will shift to be supplied from similar but not identical domain names. This has the result of subverting orders made under s 115A of the Act because the target online locations are still accessible within Australia through a respondent's carriage service.
10. In the case of websites being made available from different domain names, in the usual course, this is addressed by the procedure set out in Order 13 (in the case of Standard Target Online Locations) or Order 31 (in the case of Urgent Target Online Locations) of the 12 November orders. These procedures, however, involve the applicants providing a notice to the respondents, which gives them seven working days within which to respond. If neither respondent nor the Court requires the matter then to be relisted, the applicants may provide notice to the respondents, providing them with a further 15 working days within which to take reasonable steps to disable access to the new domain names.
11. This procedure involves a process that would take at least 22 working days to be completed. If that process was commenced today in respect of the Additional Urgent Access Means, the earliest date by which those Additional Urgent Access Means would be disabled would be 24 December 2025. This would have the consequence that those sites would remain accessible for the majority of the theatrical release period for the film "Wicked: For Good" which would have the likely effect of reducing the commercial success of the film as infringing copies of the film would be available without charge from the Additional Urgent Access Means.
12. Mr Moir gives evidence that, as a result of searches that he has undertaken, (a) all of the Additional Urgent Access Means are located outside of Australia, (b) each of the Additional Urgent Access Means appear to have the same or substantially the same name, branding and content as the Urgent Target Online Location or Standard Target Online Location accessed by the Additional Urgent Access Means, (c) the Additional Urgent Access Means, the Urgent Target Online Locations and the Standard Target Online Locations have substantially the same means of contacting the owners or operators, and (d) the Additional Urgent Access Means have substantially the same registrant and/or registrar details and contact details as the Urgent Target Online Locations and the Standard Target Online Locations.
13. On Friday, 21 November 2025, the solicitors for the applicants notified each of the respondents that they intended to approach the Court for urgent orders with respect to blocking access to the Additional Urgent Access Means. I interpolate here that the further notifications made to the respondents on Monday, 24 November 2025 described the Additional Urgent Access Means as Additional Target Online Locations. Ms St John of counsel who appeared for the applicants clarified that references to "Additional Target Online Locations" are more aptly to be described as Additional Urgent Access Means because, in substance, the Additional Urgent Access Means provide alternative routes by which access can be obtained to the Urgent Target Online Locations and Standard Target Online Locations the subject of the 12 November orders.
14. I am satisfied that although notifications were made to the respondents on the basis of a description of those access means as Additional Target Online Locations rather than Additional Urgent Access Means, the different description does not materially detract from the relevance of the notifications. Each of the respondents has now, within a very short time period, confirmed that they consent to the proposed orders sought by the applicants to disable access to the Additional Urgent Access Means. The only slight qualification to that consent was provided by TPG Telecom, which indicated that they would use their reasonable endeavours to meet the timeframe in the orders, noting that the timeframe was abridged and that their blocking services were provided by a third-party vendor. I am satisfied that this, in substance, provides a consent to the orders proposed, and that if any qualification other than reasonable endeavours to meet the timeframe was necessary, as Ms St John submitted, TPG Telecom could have raised that issue with the Court today or alternatively pursuant to a communication to the applicants' solicitors, which could have been brought to my attention at the hearing.
15. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the orders sought by the applicants with respect to disabling access to Additional Urgent Access Means should be made.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Halley.