Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific Dunlop Limited [2001] FCA 740

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific Dunlop Limited (2001) FCA 740

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – leave to amend statement of claim and application – to add cause of action – requirements for grant of leave – discretion of court not to grant leave – where failure to explain delay in seeking amendment – whether application made in bad faith PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – injunctive relief – jurisdiction of court to grant injunctive relief – whether applicant entitled to injunctive relief – whether claim for injunction was hopeless – whether sufficient nexus in pleadings between conduct alleged and injunctive relief sought - whether injunction lacked utility PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – declaratory relief – entitlement of applicant to seek declaration – jurisdiction of court to grant declarations – where declaration of public right – whether declaration lacked utility TRADE & COMMERCE – consumer protection – s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether silence can constitute misleading or deceptive conduct – where alleged failure to warn of dangers of product LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – injunction and declaration – whether any limitation period applicable to relief sought – Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 75AD, 75AQ, 80 and 82. Federal Court Rules, O 6 r 1, O 6 r 6 and O 13 r 2 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 21. The Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, followed Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, followed Karedis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Antoniou (1996) 137 ALR 544 ACCC v Real Estate Institute Of Western Australia Inc (1999) 95 FCR 114, followed Gregg v Tasmanian Trustees Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 91, considered Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477, cited Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31, followed Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd & Ors v Esso Australia & Ors [1999] FCA 477, referred to Hampic Pty Ltd v Adams (2000) ATPR 41-737, considered ACCC v Z-Tek Computer Pty Ltd (1997) 78 FCR 197, considered Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2) (1993) 41 FCR 89, considered RAIA Insurance Brokers Limited v FAI General Insurance Co Limited (1993) 41 FCR 164, cited ACCC v Goldy Motors Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1885, considered State of Queensland and Anor v J L Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146, considered Tildesley v Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 393, considered Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700, considered Shannon v Lee Chun (1912) 15 CLR 257, considered Clough and Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481 at 482, cited Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509, followed