Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1509 (19 December 2011)

Last Updated: 23 December 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd
[2011] FCA 1509

Citation:		Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1509
Parties:		SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LTD (ACN 052 833 208) and OPTUS MOBILE PTY LTD (ACN 054 365 696) v NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 778 538), AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 293), AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE (ACN 004 155 211) and TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556)
File number:		NSD 1430 of 2011
Judge:		RARES J
Date of judgment:		19 December 2011
Legislation:		Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50
Date of hearing:	19 December 2011
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr R Cobden SC with Mr J M Hennessy SC
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Baker & McKenzie
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	Mr N C Hutley SC with Mr N R Murray
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Kennedys Lawyers
Counsel for the Third Respondent and Telstra Corporation Limited:	Mr D K Catterns QC with Mr P W Flynn
Solicitor for the Third Respondent and Telstra Corporation Limited:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1430 of 2011

BETWEEN:	SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LTD (ACN 052 833 208) First Applicant and Cross-Respondent OPTUS MOBILE PTY LTD (ACN 054 365 696) Second Applicant and Cross-Respondent
AND:	NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 778 538) First Respondent and Cross-Claimant AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 293) Second Respondent and Cross-Claimant AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE (ACN 004 155 211) Third Respondent and Cross-Claimant TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) Cross-Claimant

JUDGE:	RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 DECEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), until further order, access to the versions of the report of Rodney McKemmish identified in the affidavit of Christopher James Williamson sworn 14 December 2011 as the Unredacted Report and 1st Redacted Report be restricted to external solicitors and counsel for the respondents/cross-claimants.
   

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1430 of 2011

BETWEEN:	SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LTD (ACN 052 833 208) First Applicant and Cross-Respondent OPTUS MOBILE PTY LTD (ACN 054 365 696) Second Applicant and Cross-Respondent
AND:	NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 778 538) First Respondent and Cross-Claimant AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED (ACN 003 107 293) Second Respondent and Cross-Claimant AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE (ACN 004 155 211) Third Respondent and Cross-Claimant TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) Cross-Claimant

JUDGE:	RARES J
DATE:	19 DECEMBER 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

1. These proceedings involve detailed consideration in expert evidence prepared by Rodney McKemmish of the manner by which the applicants (Optus) provide a service called TV Now. The circumstances in which that service is provided by Optus to the public involve an examination of the method by which Optus uses its information technology infrastructure, the internet and other forms of digital communication to structure the service. That is explored in detail in Mr McKemmish’s report.
2. Optus seeks an order under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that specific internet protocol (IP) addresses, port numbers, file names, server names and locations, equipment model numbers and specifications be redacted from any copies of Mr McKemmish’s report that are made available for public inspection and that those matters not be disclosed in open court or in evidence given in the proceedings.
3. Optus relies on the affidavit of Christopher Williamson, the group manager, TV and video, within Optus Digital Media. He says that disclosure of this information will assist a person who sought to gain unauthorised access to Optus’ computer systems. This is because such a person would have, in the case of IP addresses and port numbers, specific and direct targets that could be used for unauthorised access attempts, as well as a road map of the file and server names and locations. Mr Williamson is concerned that disclosure of this material may make Optus’ infrastructure vulnerable to persons with illegitimate reasons for seeking to access or deal with its technologies.
4. I am satisfied by Mr Williamson’s evidence that it is appropriate to make an order under s 50. That is because it is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. Optus should be able to disclose fully to the Court and the parties, in a secure way, technical aspects of means of delivery of its services, the subject of these proceedings, without having to expose itself to vulnerability from misuse by persons who would deal with that information in a way that was contrary to its legitimate commercial and private interests. The redactions proposed are limited, specific and appropriate for achieving the purpose for which the order has been sought.
   

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.

Associate:

Dated: 23 December 2011