Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IVF Finance Pty Limited (No 2) [2021] FCA 1295 File number: VID 587 of 2021
Judgment of: O'BRYAN J
Date of judgment: 25 October 2021
Catchwords: COMPETITION – application by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for an urgent interlocutory injunction under s 80(2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to restrain the first respondent from acquiring a fertility services business from the second respondent – where the Commission contends that the acquisition would contravene s 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – injunction granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory injunction – relationship between statutory and equitable injunctions – whether prima facie case of contravention established – whether balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction – where respondents offered an undertaking to the Court to hold separate the acquired business until the final determination of the proceeding – whether an order for divestiture as final relief is equivalent to an injunction preventing the acquisition – statutory provision excluding undertaking as to damages
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), ss 50, 80
Cases cited: APM Investments Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 49 ALR 475 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 17; 253 ALR 324 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IVF Finance Pty Limited [2021] FCA 1266 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 1079 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National (2020) 277 FCR 49 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1221 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Inc [1999] FCA 18; 161 ALR 79 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 Bullock v The Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 Foster v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2006) 149 FCR 135 ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1992) 38 FCR 248 OD Transport Pty Ltd v WA Government Railways Commission (1987) 13 FCR 500 Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 SCI Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1984) 2 FCR 113 Thomson Australian Holdings Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1981) 148 CLR 150 Trade Practices Commission v Rank Commercial Ltd (1994) ATPR 41-324 Trade Practices Commission v Santos (1992) 38 FCR 382 Trade Practices Commission v Santos Limited (1992) ATPR 41-194 Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
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