Background
In April 2017, Justice Burley of the Federal Court granted an injunction under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) requiring a group of Australian carriage service providers (CSPs) to take reasonable steps to block access to KickassTorrents (KAT), a well-known offshore BitTorrent indexing site. The applicants — Universal Music Australia, Australasian Performing Right Association, Sony Music, Warner Music, and related rights holders — are owners or exclusive licensees of copyright in a broad catalogue of musical works and sound recordings. The 2017 orders were expressed to last three years and have since been extended twice, in 2020 and 2023, with the definition of target online locations progressively expanded to cover additional KAT domain names as the site migrated across new URLs.
In April 2026 the applicants sought a third extension for a further three years, along with housekeeping amendments: removal of twelve domain names that had permanently ceased to facilitate access to KAT, removal of numerous respondents that were no longer CSPs, joinder of two Optus-related entities that had become CSPs, substitution of Telstra Limited for its predecessor entity, and correction of a respondent’s registered name and ACN. The vast majority of respondents consented. Given that the injunction would by then have been in continuous operation for more than a decade, Justice Burley directed the applicants to provide fresh solicitor certification that the remaining target locations continued to engage in the same infringing conduct that justified the original orders.
On 22 May 2026 the applicants’ solicitors at Allens provided the required certification. In the course of preparing it they identified that some previously listed domain names were inactive while others assumed to be inactive were in fact still live, prompting a revised set of proposed orders. Respondents were given ten business days to raise concerns; none did.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Burley granted the extension and all ancillary amendments. He reiterated the framework he had earlier articulated in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited (Extension of Orders) [2023] FCA 1167, under which extension applications need not relitigate the original merits provided that a solicitor certifies, based on recent access attempts, a good faith belief that the target locations have not permanently ceased their infringing purpose and that the listed domain names still enable access to those locations. That streamlined process reflects Parliament’s intent, expressed in the 2018 amendments to s 115A, that site-blocking injunctions be adaptive and capable of maintenance without repeated full hearings.
The Court was satisfied that the solicitor’s certification met the required standard and that the revised proposed orders were appropriate. Order 1 of the 2017 orders was extended for a further three years from 20 April 2026. Twelve domain names — including various “kickass” and “kat” variants — were removed from the injunction on the basis they no longer provided access to KAT. Fifteen respondents that had ceased to be CSPs were removed as parties; two Optus entities were joined as new respondents; and Telstra Limited was formally substituted for the previous Telstra entity.
For future extension applications in these proceedings, Justice Burley directed that the Roadshow certification procedure apply: an application filed at least 28 days before expiry, accompanied by a solicitor’s certification of good faith belief based on access attempts within the preceding six weeks, notice to respondents, and notification to the target sites.
Key Takeaways
- Australian federal courts will extend s 115A site-blocking injunctions on a streamlined basis — without re-examining the original merits — so long as a solicitor certifies that target locations remain actively infringing and that the listed domain names continue to provide access to them.
- As injunctions age (here, approaching a decade), courts expect enhanced procedural rigour: Justice Burley required fresh solicitor certification precisely because the cumulative duration of the orders was unusually long.
- Rights holders should audit target domain lists before seeking extensions; the applicants here identified both inactive domains (removed) and previously overlooked active domains, demonstrating that regular review is both practically and procedurally necessary.
- Respondent lists in multi-party site-blocking proceedings require ongoing maintenance — corporate restructures, mergers, and the entry or exit of CSPs from the market mean that the parties subject to a blocking order can change substantially over a decade-long injunction.
Why It Matters
This decision confirms that Australia’s site-blocking regime under s 115A operates as a durable, renewable enforcement tool for copyright owners. The KickassTorrents injunction — now set to run until at least April 2029, more than twelve years after its original grant — illustrates how the mechanism can function as long-term infrastructure for addressing persistent offshore piracy operations rather than a one-off remedy. The Court’s articulation of the certification-based renewal procedure provides a practical template that aligns with the cost-reduction objectives Parliament built into the 2018 amendments.
For practitioners and rights holders globally, the decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate domain and party records throughout the life of a blocking order, and signals that Australian courts are willing to supervise — but not obstruct — the ongoing use of site-blocking injunctions against entrenched infringing platforms, provided copyright owners discharge their procedural obligations with care.