Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SensaSlim Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 8) [2016] FCA 728

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SensaSlim Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 8) [2016] FCA 728 File number: NSD 1163 of 2011

Judge: YATES J

Date of judgment: 23 June 2016

Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should follow the event – whether costs should be apportioned

Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boyle [2015] FCA 1039 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SensaSlim Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 7) [2016] FCA 484

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 18

Solicitor for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: The Fifth Respondent was self-represented

ORDERS NSD 1163 of 2011

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Applicant

AND: SENSASLIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 140 333 133 (and others named in the Schedule) First Respondent

JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 23 JUNE 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The fifth respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this proceeding as against him. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YATES J: 1 On 11 May 2016, I made certain orders against the remaining respondents following a penalty hearing: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SensaSlim Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 7) [2016] FCA 484 (the penalty reasons). In those reasons I noted (at [178]) that the applicant had sought an order that the remaining personal respondents—Mr Foster, Mr O'Brien and Mr Boyle—pay its costs of the proceeding. I noted that, at the penalty hearing, Mr Boyle had sought to be heard on the question of costs following the publication of the penalty reasons. I allowed Mr Boyle that opportunity, although I expressed the provisional view in the penalty reasons that I could see no reason why Mr Foster, Mr O'Brien and Mr Boyle should not pay the applicant's costs of the case as brought against each of them, respectively. 2 Mr Boyle and the applicant have now provided written submissions on the question of costs as between them, in accordance with Orders 13 and 14 of the orders made on 11 May 2016.