Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 121

Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 121

The absence of particulars of overt acts after 1 July 1977 does not render the respondent's case so clearly untenable that it ought to be struck out; the trial judge's discretionary refusal to strike out was open and no error is demonstrated. It is open to the trial judge, if the facts as alleged are proved, to infer that the arrangements or understandings continued to be given effect after 1 July 1977.

Parties
Appellant (second Defendant): Brambles Holdings Limited; Respondent (plaintiff): Trade Practices Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1979
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Appeals—discretion, Injunctions, Pecuniary Penalties
Trade Practices Competition Law Civil Procedure Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Appeals—discretion Injunctions Pecuniary Penalties

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brambles Holdings Limited

Appellant (second Defendant)

Trade Practices Commission

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified paragraphs of the statement of claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as being prejudicial, embarrassing or incapable of supporting relief sought, due to absence of pleaded overt acts after 1 July 1977
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted on abuse of process grounds
  3. 3 The permissible scope of appellate intervention in discretionary procedural orders

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of particulars of overt acts after 1 July 1977 does not render the respondent's case so clearly untenable that it ought to be struck out; the trial judge's discretionary refusal to strike out was open and no error is demonstrated. It is open to the trial judge, if the facts as alleged are proved, to infer that the arrangements or understandings continued to be given effect after 1 July 1977.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondent's costs.