Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chaste Corporation [2003] FCA 180

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chaste Corporation [2003] FCA 180 CORPORATIONS – whether a claim for a pecuniary penalty constitutes a legal or equitable right which permits the making of a preservation of assets order – whether a Mareva order will be granted where no amount up to which the dealing with assets is confined – whether a Mareva order on assets worldwide is competent – whether a Mareva order might be made covering a possible future order for costs. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 48, 76, 87, 96, 96A Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK) s 37 TPC v Annand & Thompson (1987) ATPR 40-772 cited Bayer AG v Winter and Others [1986] 1 All ER 733 approved Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (Nos 3 & 4) 1990 1 Ch 65 approved Ashtiani v Kashi [1986] 2 All ER 970 approved Brereton v Milstein (1988) VR 508 distinguished Planet International Ltd (in liq.) v Garcia [1989] 2 Qd R 427 approved ACCC v Hugo Boss (Australia) Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-536 mentioned ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Limited (2001) 208 CLR 199 followed Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 followed Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 cited CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 referred to Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612 followed Rahman (Prince Abdul) v Abu-Taha [1980] 3 All ER 409 referred to Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd and Others (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 approved Frigo v Culhaci (Court of Appeal NSW, 17 July 1998, Unreported) cited

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v CHASTE CORPORATION PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 089 837 329) and OTHERS No Q 252 of 2001 SPENDER J BRISBANE 12 MARCH 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 252 OF 2001