Cartigney Australia Pty Ltd v Borden Australia Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 816

FOR LIMITED DISTRIBUTION "787

© JUDGMENT Noy: p.GdaSoeened Beane

| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) | )

'GENERAL DIVISION ) No. VG 171 of 1985 :. ) )

"NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

Between: CARTIGNY PTY. LIMITED

And: ' BORDEN AUSTRALIA PTY .LIMITED

CORAM: Einfeld J.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 19 August 1987

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Part of this notice of motion deals with the alleged inadequacy of the

answers by the applicant to the respondent's administered

interrogatories.

I have already dealt in argument with the matters raised under interrogatories 1 and 2, and counsel for the applicant has indicated that he will comply with and supply the information adumbrated in: my

observations and argument.

Paragraphs 10A and 10C are referred to by counsel for the respondent as having been inadequately answered. The basis of the argument, as I understand it, is that the applicant has failed to identify the relevant wholesale market or wholesale price for raw material as alleged in its

amended statement of claim, especially in paragraph 8 thereof.

It is common ground in this case that at the relevant time the

respondent monopolised the Australian raw material supply, and that the

'only alternative supply to that supplied by the respondent would have

been and was from overseas.

The applicant has indicated that the wholesale market upon which its claim is based is the wholesale market represented by the respondent. The applicant also alleges that the price of $8.50 per roll for the

clingwrap was to be tested in terms of fairness and the other criteria

alleged against the price charged from time to time by the respondent.

In those circumstances, and having regard to the detail given in the so- called claims tables which the applicant has supplied in particularisation of its allegations, it seems to me that there is no substance to the assertions made on behalf of the respondent that the