Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 6) [2013] FCA 1002 Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 6) [2013] FCA 1002
Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI ENERGIA S.R.L (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI A SISTEMI ENERGIA S.P.A) and NEXANS SA RCS PARIS 393 525 852
File number: SAD 145 of 2009
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 4 October 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by second respondent to strike out statement of claim or, in the alternative, specified paragraphs of the statement of claim – application by applicant to seek leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim – whether the applicant has a prima facie case against the second respondent – whether the statement of claim or the specified paragraphs are fundamentally defective – consideration of the specified paragraphs. Held: Leave to amend statement of claim to be granted subject to the provision of particulars in certain paragraphs.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37P Federal Court Rules 1979 O 8 rr 3, 5 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.21(1), 16.41 – 16.45 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 84, 155
Cases cited: Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd (ACN 078 654 243) v Qantas Airways Ltd (ACN 009 661 901) and Others [2008] FCA 1458; 251 ALR 166 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd (2000) 169 ALR 344 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Boral Ltd (No 2) (2000) ATPR 41-738 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1997) ATPR 41-568 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 4) [2012] FCA 1323; 298 ALR 251 Australian Securities & Investment Commission v Adler (2001) 40 ACSR 214 Chan Cuong Su (t/a Ausviet Travel) v Direct Flights International Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-662 Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-522 Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852 v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] FCA 192 Research in Motion Ltd and Another v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 176 FCR 66 State of Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (QLD) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-691
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