Morwood, Ian David & Anor v Chemdata Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 40

Morwood, Ian David & Anor v Chemdata Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 40

There is sufficient material before the Court to support the assertion that a prima facie case exists for relief sought against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, justifying its continued joinder as a respondent.

Parties
First Applicant: Ian David Morwood; Second Applicant: Computerad Australia Pty Limited (formerly Computerad Pty Limited); First Respondent: Chemdata Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Amfac Pty Limited; Third Respondent: IMS Australia Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Edward Llewellyn Crook; Fifth Respondent: Colin Raymond Trevena; Sixth Respondent: John Michael Green; Seventh Respondent: Philip Thomson; Eighth Respondent: Bruce Michael McConochie; Ninth Respondent: James Sutton Harrison Snr; Tenth Respondent: Gwenda Mary Harrison; Eleventh Respondent: Graeme Paul Harrison; Twelfth Respondent: Robert Stanley Richards; Thirteenth Respondent: The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Practices Act, Liability of Parent Corporation, Joinder of Party, Prima Facie Case, Knowingly Concerned Involvement
Competition Law Trade Practices Act Liability of Parent Corporation Joinder of Party Prima Facie Case Knowingly Concerned Involvement

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian David Morwood

First Applicant

Computerad Australia Pty Limited (formerly Computerad Pty Limited)

Second Applicant

Chemdata Pty Limited

First Respondent

Amfac Pty Limited

Second Respondent

IMS Australia Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Edward Llewellyn Crook

Fourth Respondent

Colin Raymond Trevena

Fifth Respondent

John Michael Green

Sixth Respondent

Philip Thomson

Seventh Respondent

Bruce Michael McConochie

Eighth Respondent

James Sutton Harrison Snr

Ninth Respondent

Gwenda Mary Harrison

Tenth Respondent

Graeme Paul Harrison

Eleventh Respondent

Robert Stanley Richards

Twelfth Respondent

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation

Thirteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prima facie case is established against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation for involvement in alleged contraventions under s.75B of the Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Whether leave to join The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation as a respondent should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

There is sufficient material before the Court to support the assertion that a prima facie case exists for relief sought against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, justifying its continued joinder as a respondent.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion by The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation to set aside leave to join it as a respondent is dismissed.
  • Costs of the motion are reserved.