Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v National Australia Bank Limited [2001] FCA 112
Federal Court Rules O 5 r 12, O 6 r 8 Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52, considered News Limited v Australian Rugby Football League Limited (1996) 64 FCR 410, cited AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED N 948 of 2000 BRANSON J SYDNEY 15 FEBRUARY 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 948 of 2000
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT
AND: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. No order be made on the notice of motion today. 2. Further consideration of the notice of motion be adjourned to a date to be fixed. 3. Visa International Service Association Inc has leave to bring the notice of motion on upon 48 hours notice being given to the parties to the proceeding. 4. Visa International Service Association Inc pay the costs of the applicant in the proceedings of today's hearing on the notice of motion. 5. Subject to paragraph 4, the costs of the notice of motion be reserved. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 948 of 2000
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT
AND: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BRANSON J
DATE: 15 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR DECISION 1 Visa International Service Association Inc ("Visa") has moved pursuant to a notice of motion filed 6 February 2001 for an order that it be joined as a respondent to this proceeding. National Australia Bank Limited ("NAB") has indicated that it does not oppose the making of the order sought by Visa. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC") has opposed the making of the order sought by Visa. In the alternative ACCC has argued that the order ought not to be made now. 2 I have not reached a concluded view as to whether Visa has made out a case for joinder under O 6 r 8 of the Federal Court Rules. However, I am satisfied that, whether or not it has made out such a case, I have a discretion as to the timing of any joinder that might be ordered. Indeed no party contended to the contrary. 3 I am of the view that it would not be an appropriate exercise of my discretion to order the joinder of an additional party to this proceeding now.
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