ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 595

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 595 PROCEDURE – proposed cross-claim – proposed cross-respondent an overseas corporation – claim for indemnification – whether proper basis for claim – whether arguable basis under Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) – whether arguable basis in common law or equity – whether leave should be granted Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53(c), 75B(1), 87(1A) Newave Investments Ltd v Complete Command SDNBHD [1999] FCA 1537, cited Re La Rosa: Ex parte Norgard v Rodpat Nominees Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 237, followed Bialkower v Acohs Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-685, applied Lezam Pty Ltd v Seabridge Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 535, distinguished Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661, followed AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v EMERALD OCEAN DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD, SLEDERTONE HEALTH AND BEAUTY PTY LTD and SEAN O'DONOGHUE W 118 of 2000 RD NICHOLSON J 24 MAY 2001 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 118 of 2000

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: EMERALD OCEAN DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT

SLENDERTONE HEALTH AND BEAUTY PTY LTD

SECOND RESPONDENT

SEAN O'DONOGHUE

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 24 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondents' motion to file a cross-claim be refused. 2. The respondents pay the applicant's costs on the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 118 of 2000

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION