Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2021] FCA 175 File number: NSD 1187 of 2020
Judgment of: ABRAHAM J
Date of judgment: 4 March 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — stay of pecuniary penalties pending appeal – whether stay should be granted – matters to be considered
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 36.8
Cases cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (receivers appointed) (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Ali v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2020] FCA 860 Australian Building and Construction Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3; (2018) 262 CLR 157 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BMW (Australia) Ltd (No 2) [2003] FCA 864 Burns v AMP Finance Ltd [2005] FCA 761 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 Flight Centre Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2014] FCA 658 Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd, McLean Tecnic Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; (2002) 55 NSWLR 737 Nolten v Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1494 Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corp (1996) 67 FCR 65 Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 351 Wooldridge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] FCA 349; (2015) 106 ASCR 551
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