Editing C7 Sport (section)

===Judgment===
The judgment was handed down on 27 July 2007 and telecast live by the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]], [[Sky News Australia|Sky News]] (owned in part by the [[Seven Media Group]] and PBL), [[Yahoo7]], the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] website and ABC Online.

C7 lost the case conclusively on most points with Justice Sackville declaring that, based upon the anti-competitive provisions of the Trade Practices Act upon which Seven relied, the case could not succeed. In a key point, he explained that "the reason is that even if each of the consortium respondents had the objective attributed to it by Seven—that of killing C7—achieving that objective could not have substantially lessened competition in the retail television market."

Justice Sackville labelled Seven as "far from a helpless and innocent victim", being "the author of its own misfortune" and stating "there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in certain of Seven's contentions." He was unable to accept Seven's chairman [[Kerry Stokes]] as a reliable witness.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|1062|2007|litigants=Seven Network Limited v News Limited |pinpoint=[393]-[398] per Sackville J |courtname=auto |date=27 July 2007}}.</ref>

The judge also commented on the hefty financial cost of the case, remarking that "in my view, the expenditure of $200 million and counting on a single piece of litigation is not only extraordinarily wasteful, but borders on the scandalous".<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|1062|2007|litigants=Seven Network Limited v News Limited |pinpoint=[10] per Sackville J |courtname=auto |date=27 July 2007}}.</ref> The case has continually been labelled by both the legal and media sectors as one of the most extreme examples of "mega-litigation".