Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey (No 2) [2000] FCA 810
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 65F, subs 65J(7) THEO HOLDINGS PTY LTD AND BAROK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD v JOSEPH BENEDICT HOCKEY AND AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Q 144 OF 1999 AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v THEO HOLDINGS PTY LTD AND BAROK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD Q 192 OF 1999 DOWSETT J 5 JUNE 2000 BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 144 OF 1999
BETWEEN: THEO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT
BAROK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: JOSEPH BENEDICT HOCKEY
FIRST RESPONDENT
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
SECOND RESPONDENT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 192 OF 1999
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT
AND: THEO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
BAROK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 5 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. Section 65F of the Trade Practices Act 1974 did not empower the first respondent to issue to each of the first and second applicants notices dated 8 June 1999 and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 9 June 1999 in respect of fire doors ("the recall notices"). 2. The second respondent was in breach of subs 65J(7) in failing to inform the applicants that it proposed to consider documents concerning the voluntary recall by Korab Industries Pty Ltd of fire doors distributed by that company.
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