Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 617

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 617 File number: VID 339 of 2017

Judge: LEE J

Date of judgment: 8 May 2018

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Advance ruling under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as to the admissibility of admissions – finding that the admissions were obtained by improper conduct – application of s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – officer of regulator engaging in a fiction of posing as a consumer needing repair to a mobile telephone and making false statements with knowledge that they were likely to cause the person who was being questioned to make an admission – whether evidence obtained improperly should be the subject of discretionary exclusion – evidence not excluded in the exercise of discretion

Legislation: Australian Consumer Law, Pts 3-2, ss 54, 55 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), ss 155(1)(a), 155(1)(b) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Pts 3.4, 3.6, 3.11, ss 5(a), 26, 29, 38, 55, 56, 85, 85, 97, 135, 136, 138, 138(1), 138(2)(b), 139, 139(2), 192A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Pt VB Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 64 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 138(2), 139, 139(2) Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), s 5(a) Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 139(2)

Cases cited: Application by Peter James Holland pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2017] NSWSC 462 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 792; (2010) 240 FLR 327 Bedford v Bedford (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Windeyer J, 20 October 1998) Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 22; (2016) 245 FCR 529 Fleming v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 233; (2009) 197 A Crim R 282 Gedeon v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 257; (2013) 237 A Crim R 326 Gilmour v Environment Protection Authority [2002] NSWCCA 399; (2002) 55 NSWLR 593 Jager v Lynch [2003] TASSC 114; (2003) 12 Tas R 195 Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; (2004) 218 CLR 216 Melbourne Steamship Company Limited v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs [2007] NSWCA 348; (2007) 243 ALR 574 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Camilleri [2007] NSWCCA 36; (2007) 68 NSWLR 720 R v Coulstock (1998) 99 A Crim R 143 R v Gallagher [2015] NSWCCA 228 R v Naa [2009] NSWSC 851; (2009) 76 NSWLR 271 R v Reitberger [2014] NSWDC 154 Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 Robinson v Woolworths Ltd [2005] NSWCCA 426; (2005) 64 NSWLR 612 Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Interim Report), Report No 26 (1985) Krongold H L, "A Comparative Perspective on the Exclusion of Relevant Evidence: Common Law and Civil Law Jurisdictions" (2003) 12 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 97