Decision expected soon in mammoth C7 litigation

A JUDGMENT is imminent in one of Australia's most expensive legal cases, the C7 case, with parties to the $200 million court battle - including some of the country's largest media companies - told to expect a final ruling by the end of the month.

A JUDGMENT is imminent in one of Australia's most expensive legal cases, the C7 case, with parties to the $200 million court battle - including some of the country's largest media companies - told to expect a final ruling by the end of the month.

The Weekend Australian understands Federal Court judge Ronald Sackville has circulated a note to major parties involved in the case, informing them that, barring unforeseen delays, it was "anticipated" a ruling in the case would be handed down by July 31.

The case centres on a damages claim made by the Seven Network against many of its rivals, including News Limited - publisher of The Weekend Australian - Telstra, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd and Optus, for allegedly conspiring to "kill" its pay-TV arm, C7, in a battle over broadcast rights for Australian rules football and rugby league. But other parties have claimed C7's failure could be attributed to its own shortcomings, including a bungled bid for pay-TV sports rights.

The date for the judgment's release will be just under 10 months after Justice Sackville retired to consider his verdict early in October last year.

The final ruling - expected to run into many hundreds of pages - will be accompanied by a "mini-judgment", in an attempt to break down the complexities of the case to interested parties.

Part of the reason the issuing of the judgment has taken so long is understood to have been the sheer logistics of printing and making such a lengthy ruling. Already, the statistics surrounding the case are monumental: it has created more than 8000 pages of transcripts, 85,000 documents and 120 hearing days. Justice Sackville said at one point: "You don't read 4000 pages or 4500 pages of this material by just, you know, lying back and listening to the footy in the background."

He also suggested during the case that the cost of the litigation for all the parties involved had already run into the hundreds of millions, and could go higher - despite his continued urgings during the case that the parties mediate.

At one point he estimated the cost so far had been "somewhere between $150 million and $200 million". The judge questioned why so much was being spent: "Members of the public, not to mention the shareholders of the public companies involved, must wonder how it is that such huge amounts of money can be expended on legal costs in order to resolve a dispute that is, after all, about money."

Through its accounts, Seven alone has reported in excess of $80 million in legal costs relating to the case, including $27 million in 2004-05, $43 million in 2005-06 and $14 million for the first half of the 2006-07 financial year.

Part of the reason for the huge costs for all parties is the formidable legal teams in the case, with 27 barristers and many more solicitors already major beneficiaries from the continuation of the case.

Seven hired Jonathan Sumption, one of Britain's top commercial barristers, to lead its case, amid suggestions he was paid $20,000 a day.

The case has also involved some of Australia's most expensive senior counsels, including Noel Hutley for News, Tony Meagher for PBL and Tony Bannon for Optus.

Justice Sackville hinted that the costs were unlikely to end for years: it appeared "inevitable", he said, the losing side in the case would appeal.

In September last year, he stated: "If the parties imagine they have reached the end of their part in the litigation, and that an end to the costings and the uncertainty associated with this litigation is in sight, I think they are seriously mistaken."