Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v FFE Building Services Ltd [2003] FCA 286
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pre-trial directions – whether leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment should be granted – where the question on appeal in a proceedings for a civil penalty is whether the Court should direct pre-trial service of statements of witnesses to be called by natural person respondents Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 155 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Sidebottom v Commissioner of Taxation (2003) VSCA 2 followed Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 cited AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v FFE BUILDING SERVICES LTD & ORS N 509 OF 2002 HELY J 3 APRIL 2003 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 509 OF 2002
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT
AND: FFE BUILDING SERVICES LTD
(formerly Chubb Building Services Ltd)
(formerly James Hardie Building Services Pty Ltd)
T/as Fire Fighting Enterprises
ACN 000 067 541
FIRST RESPONDENT
TYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(formerly Wormald Australia Pty Ltd)
T/as Wormald Fire Systems
ACN 008 399 004
and T/as Mercury Engineering
SECOND RESPONDENT
PREMIER FIRE PROTECTION (NSW) PTY LTD
ACN 067 652 895
THIRD RESPONDENT
METROPOLITAN FIRE SYSTEMS PTY LTD
ACN 061 519 471
FOURTH RESPONDENT
ALLEN EDWARD SMITH
FIFTH RESPONDENT
COLIN SIMPSON
SIXTH RESPONDENT
VITO FODERA
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate