Federal Court of Australia
A In T
NEW
bon
Te tee ot
t
HE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G204 of 1982
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: JUSFRUTE LIMITED Applicant \,
AND: RONALD MOCORE BANNERMAN First Respondent AND TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Second Respondent AND JOHN PRIMROSE Third Respondent ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: Franki J. DATE OF ORDERS: 12 April 1983 WHERE MADE: Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.
The notice of motion of 8 March 1983 seeking further and proper discovery is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondents of that motion.
The subpoenas to each of the respondents dated 18 March 1983 are set aside and costs of each respondent in its or his notice of motion to set aside the subpoena to it or
him 1s to be paid by Jusfrute Limited.
y
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G204 of 1982
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: JUSFRUTE LIMITED Applicant
RONALD MOORE BANNERMAN First Respondent
E
AND
TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Second Respondent
AND
JOHN PRIMROSE Third Respondent
12 April 1983
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FRANKI J.
This judgment is delivered in a notice of motion of 8 March 1983 filed by the applicant for "further and proper discovery" and in notices of motion of 18 March 1983 filed by each of the respondents to have certain subpoenas set
aside.
The Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission issued a notice on or about 12 October 1982 under s.155 of
the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act) requiring Jusfrute
Py
Limited to answer certain questions and produce certain documents. Similar notices were issued to four other companies namely Sunburst Foods Pty. Limited, Elmer Products Pty. Limited, United Beverages Pty. Limited and Regency Foods Pty. Limited. The notices recited that the Chairman, having reason to believe that the applicant was capable of furnishing information and producing documents relating to matters that constitute, or may constitute, contravention by producers of orange juice products in Australia of ss.52(1), 53(a) and 55 of the Act, required the company to whom the notice was issued to furnish the information set out in Schedule 1 to the Notice and to produce the documents set out in Schedule 2 to the Notice. In an endeavour to have the matter heard at an early date the Court adopted a
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate