Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 3) [2009] FCA 407
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v RICHARD PRATT
VID 443 of 2008
RYAN J
29 April 2009
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 443 of 2008
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Prosecutor
AND: RICHARD PRATT
Defendant
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 2009
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The questions ordered on 2 December 2008 to be tried and decided separately from any other question and before any trial in the proceedings be answered as follows: Question 1: No. Question 2: Unnecessary to answer. Question 3: Unnecessary to answer. 2. There be a directions hearing herein at a date to be fixed. 3. Liberty be reserved to either party to apply.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 443 of 2008
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Prosecutor
AND: RICHARD PRATT
Defendant
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE: 29 april 2009
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF ALLEGED ADMISSIONS BY THE DEFENDANT 1 On 2 December 2008, I made the following orders for questions to be tried and decided in these proceedings separately from any other question and before any trial in the proceedings; A. Pursuant to s 189 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Evidence Act") and O 29 of the Rules of this Court the following questions be decided after a hearing to commence on 8 December 2008 separately from any other question and before any trial in the proceedings herein; (1) Are any and which of the Revised Form of Proposed Order, the Penalty Statement, the relevant paragraphs of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the relevant paragraphs of the Further Amended Defence admissible as evidence in these proceedings pursuant to any of ss 81, 82(b), 87 or 88 of the Evidence Act? (2) If yes to (1), in respect of any of the Revised Form of Proposed Order, the Penalty Statement, the relevant paragraphs of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the relevant paragraphs of the Further Amended Defence (which are hereinafter collectively called "the prima facie admissible documents") are any and which of the prima facie admissible documents inadmissible in these proceedings by reason of; (a) s 85(2) of the Evidence Act; or (b) s 137 of the Evidence Act? (3) If (2) be answered no in respect of any of the prima facie admissible documents; (a) will the Court refuse to admit such document as evidence in these proceedings in the exercise of the discretion conferred by; (i) s 90 of the Evidence Act; (ii) s 135 of the Evidence Act? (b) is such prima facie admissible document by reason of s 138 of the Evidence Act not to be admitted as evidence in these proceedings? B. The costs of both parties of the hearing on 10 November 2008 be reserved.'
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