Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1017

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1017

PROCEDURE – interrogatories and discovery – whether failure by first respondent to answer interrogatories and provide discovery – whether purported answers to interrogatories and discovery from second respondent given in capacity as director of first respondent – necessity for further evidence Federal Court Rules O 15 r 16(1)(b), O 16 r 7(1)(c), O 16 r 9(1)(b), O 16 r 9(2) Welsbach Incandescent Gas Lighting Company v New Sunlight Incandescent Company [1900] 2 Ch 1 referred to Freeman v Rabinov [1981] VR 539 referred to AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD and JAMES HAMILTON RAE S17 of 2001 RD NICHOLSON J 15 AUGUST 2002 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S17 of 2001

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT

JAMES HAMILTON RAE

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Within 28 days the applicant file and serve any evidence and submissions relevant to a determination by the Court of whether the second respondent was a director of the first respondent as at the relevant date at which the second respondent provided an answer to interrogatories and purported to provide discovery on behalf of the first respondent. 2. Within a further 14 days of compliance by the applicant with order 1 the first and second respondents have liberty to file any affidavit evidence or further submissions in response. 3. The applicant's notice of motion dated 17 August 2001 stand further adjourned pending compliance with orders 1 and 2. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.