ACCC v Michigan Group Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1631

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACCC v Michigan Group Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1631 AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v MICHIGAN GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 065 378 029), RODNEY MONTAGUE LASKI, CHARLES CAMERON, IMOBILIARE PTY LTD (ACN 063 501 208), PETER SEMOS, GEORGE SEMOS, DARYL FRANCIS DOHERTY, YEPPOON PTY LTD (ACN 081 944 112), LINDA CAROL MORETTO AND PROSPERO FRANZESE Q 105 OF 2000 DOWSETT J 19 OCTOBER 2001 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 105 OF 2000

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: MICHIGAN GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 065 378 029)

FIRST RESPONDENT

RODNEY MONTAGUE LASKI

SECOND RESPONDENT

CHARLES CAMERON

THIRD RESPONDENT

IMOBILIARE PTY LTD (ACN 063 501 208)

FOURTH RESPONDENT

PETER SEMOS

FIFTH RESPONDENT

GEORGE SEMOS

SIXTH RESPONDENT

DARYL FRANCIS DOHERTY

SEVENTH RESPONDENT

YEPPOON PTY LTD (ACN 081 944 112)

EIGHTH RESPONDENT

LINDA CAROL MORETTO

NINTH RESPONDENT

PROSPERO FRANZESE

TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE: 16 & 19 OCTOBER 2001

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Although I consider that it is highly arguable that the case as pleaded and particularised will fail, that assessment is dependent upon my view of the inferences available from alleged facts. I consider it would be potentially embarrassing in the conduct of the trial to uphold the motion at this stage. It would not be possible for any appeal from such a decision to be heard and determined before the trial of the balance of the proceedings. If such an appeal were successful, the applicant would be compelled to pursue the tenth respondent in a separate hearing. 2 This difficulty is, as far as I can see, entirely attributable to the fact that the present motion is brought at a very late stage. It is, I think, inappropriate that it be entertained, and in those circumstances, I exercise my discretion against granting the relief claimed.