Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119

Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119

Applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success to justify mandatory interlocutory relief. The evidence did not support a prima facie case that respondents’ refusal to supply was because of applicants’ future dealings with Visy or that the purpose was substantially to lessen competition. The obligations under the expired contracts were intended by their terms to be limited. There was insufficient assurance that mandatory interlocutory orders would be ultimately justified, especially given the limited evidence as to market definition and competitive impact.

Parties
First Applicant: Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Parmalat Food Products Pty Ltd; First Respondent: VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Brickwood (VIC) Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Brickwood (QLD) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Hearing, Determination of Urgent Mandatory Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Dealing, Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions, Substantial Lessening of Competition, Balance of Convenience
Competition Law Practice and Procedure Exclusive Dealing Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions Substantial Lessening of Competition Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Parmalat Food Products Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Brickwood (VIC) Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Brickwood (QLD) Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Hearing, Determination of Urgent Mandatory Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents’ refusal to supply goods constituted exclusive dealing in contravention of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 47(1)
  2. 2 Whether mandatory interlocutory relief should be granted to compel supply of goods under expired agreements
  3. 3 Whether refusal had the purpose of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success to justify mandatory interlocutory relief. The evidence did not support a prima facie case that respondents’ refusal to supply was because of applicants’ future dealings with Visy or that the purpose was substantially to lessen competition. The obligations under the expired contracts were intended by their terms to be limited. There was insufficient assurance that mandatory interlocutory orders would be ultimately justified, especially given the limited evidence as to market definition and competitive impact.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief filed 12 February 2013 be dismissed with costs.