Up or Down ??, page-4203

This is playing out as you would expect - claim for damages by SWM and then CA to try and protect itself issues counterclaim.

Firstly, I have no opinion in relation to SWM's claims against CA.

I think the strength of CA's counterclaim may be a little shaky as they would have to show that SWM both materially breached some aspects of the contract in relation to advertising minutes per hour (or some such measure) and also that this was materially different to the way they managed the previous contract with Nine. Whilst there may be some aspect to the counterclaim "at the margin" I would be surprised if CA could demonstrate wholesale disregard for contractual arrangements around advertising.

However, I do not believe that this will ever see the inside of a courtroom. It is in both parties interests to resolve this before cricket starts up again in the summer. CA would want a committed broadcaster for their summer of cricket and similarly SWM cannot realistically operate as broadcaster and expect to make money with this dispute in the background (as advertisers would be sensing real risk in signing up to big advertising arrangements with this dispute blasting away).

So, I would suggest that these two parties will be sitting in front of a mediator in relatively short order, with a negotiated arrangement sorted to settle the dispute. I would surmise the this will see either SWM walking away before the start of summer (that is possibly unlikely as I am not sure CA could run a process fast enough to establish a new broadcast arrangement in time) or they reach an amicable settlement position for this summer with the contract to then terminate at the end of Q1 in calendar 2023.

GLTA & DYOR