Trade Practices Commission v. George Weston Foods Ltd & Ors [1980] FCA 36

cae ot ot ee Tt os oe sees Fe eteg eo eee

Trade Practices Act 1974 - submission of no case to

answer - whether the defendants should be required to elect not to call evidence - practice to be adopted and

matters to be taken into account °

Trade Practices Commission v. George Weston Foods

Limited

No. G.16 of 1978

Davies, J.

Canberra

11 March 1980

woke Ae cen te

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

- pe eR de SOT Tow rtd

No. G.16 of 1978

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

11 March 1980

wwe we ww SS

In the matter of -

THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

Between : TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Plaintiff And : GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED

First Defendant And : ALLIED MILLS INDUSTRIES PTY. LIMITED

Second Defendant And : L.A. COGGAN & SON PTY. LIMITED

Third Defendant And : JAMES MURRAY OGILVIE

Fourth Defendant And : ISABEL MARGARET OGILVIE

Fifth Defendant And : JOHN FREDERICK DALLAS

Sixth Defendant

RULING

DAVIES, J.

= eed Me

The following reasons were delivered orally on 11 March 1980 :

The defendants, by their counsel, seek to move for judgment on the ground that there is no case to answer. Mr. Masterman, senior counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that counsel for the defendants should not be permitted so to move unless they

elect not to call evidence in the trial.

Counsel do not rely upon any specific provision of the Federal Court Act 1976 or of the rules, but reference was made to rule 1 of order 35 and also to the inherent powers of the Court. Rule 1 of order 35 provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, on the application of any party, pronounce such judgment or make such order as the nature of the case requires. Counsel for all parties are agreed that section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1973 does not apply to this hearing and that, in considering these application, I am not, as was Mr. Justice