Medibank Private Limited v Cassidy [2002] FCAFC 290

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Medibank Private Ltd v Cassidy [2002] FCAFC 290 COURTS & JURISDICTION – Appeal from a decision refusing a motion seeking summary dismissal of orders sought pursuant to s 12GD Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 1989 (Cth) (equivalent of s 80 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) – nature of s 12GM of Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 1989 (Cth) (equivalent of s 87 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) – the extent to which s 12GM limits the power granted by s 12GD – power of the Court to order compensation to non-parties to a proceeding – legislative history of relevant sections considered. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 80, 80A, 82, 86, 87 Securities Industry Act 1980 (Cth) s 149 Companies Act 1981 (Cth) s 574 Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 1989 (Cth) ss 12DA, 12GD, 12GE, 12GF, 12GJ, 12GM Corporations Law 1989 (Cth) s 1324 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1324 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 68 Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (UK) Leon Fink Holdings Pty Limited v Australian Film Commission (1979) 141 CLR 672, followed Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214, cited Mayne Nickless Ltd v Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd (2001) 114 FCR 168, cited ACCC v On Clinic Australia Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-517, considered ACCC v MHG Plastic Industries Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 970, considered ACCC v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1062, cited

MEDIBANK PRIVATE LIMITED v BRIAN CASSIDY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION

V 836 OF 2000

SUNDBERG, EMMETT & CONTI JJ

13 SEPTEMBER 2002

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 836 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MEDIBANK PRIVATE LIMITED