Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 4) [2016] FCA 382 File number: NSD 886 of 2014
Judge: EDELMAN J
Date of judgment: 15 April 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether declarations should be made for the purposes of facilitating an appeal prior to a penalties hearing – inefficiencies involved in splitting hearings with the potential for multiple appeals involving the same underlying subject matter – potential for six different appellate level hearings if remedies hearing is split – application for a split remedies hearing dismissed
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) s 67
Cases cited: ASIC v Edwards [2005] NSWSC 1278 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2009] HCATrans 20 Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 3) (1998) 86 FCR 374 Maughan Thiem Auto Sales Pty Ltd v Cooper [2013] FCAFC 145; (2013) 216 FCR 197 Qube Ports Pty Ltd v McMaster [2016] FCA 59 Tag Pacific Limited v McSweeney (1992) 34 FCR 438 Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; (2001) 206 CLR 1
Date of hearing: 15 April 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
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