Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Transfer of proceedings as between Registries of the Court – exercise of discretion – representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act") – proceeding commenced by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC") as representative party on behalf of itself and other group members – ACCC's "claim" is for injunctive and corrective advertising orders under ss 80 and 80A of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("TP Act") – other group members' "claims" are for compensation for loss suffered – whether ACCC entitled to commence proceeding as representative party under Part IVA based on its statutory standing to seek orders in public interest under ss 80 and 80A of TP Act – whether that standing to apply for relief is a "claim" – exercise of discretion to order under s 33N of FCA Act that proceeding no longer continue under Part IVA – factors relevant to exercise of discretion – application to strike out parts of statement of claim – embarrassment
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Part IVA
Trade Practices Act1974 ss 80, 80A, 87
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155 applied
Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment (No 1) (1996) 69 FCR 1 referred to
Cycles & Wheelman Pty Ltd v Beltech Corporation Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 279 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chats House Investments Pty Limited(1996) 71 FCR 250 followed
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Golden Sphere International Inc, unreported, 1 June 1998, QG 153 of 1996 followed Bank of Western Australia v Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 referred to Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 referred to Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471 referred to Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242 referred to Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd [1995] Ch 259 referred to Como Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR ¶41-550 (FCA/FC) Vasquez v Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1971) 94 Cal Rptr 796 (484 P 2d 964) referred to
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