Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 889

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 889

The proposed amendment to the statement of claim was refused because it was brought too late, would create an unfair and intolerable burden on the respondents and potentially require adjournment, and lacked adequate particulars for new allegations.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Boral Ltd (ACN 000 051 696); Second Respondent: Boral Besser Masonry Limited (ACN 000 223 718)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Reasons for Judgment on Amendment
Outcome
Amendment application refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Predatory Pricing, Section 76 Trade Practices Act 1974
Competition Law Amendment of Pleadings Predatory Pricing Section 76 Trade Practices Act 1974

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Boral Ltd (ACN 000 051 696)

First Respondent

Boral Besser Masonry Limited (ACN 000 223 718)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Reasons for Judgment on Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment to statement of claim should be allowed at this stage
  2. 2 Whether applicant has provided sufficient particulars for new allegations
  3. 3 Practical effect and burden of allowing late amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment to the statement of claim was refused because it was brought too late, would create an unfair and intolerable burden on the respondents and potentially require adjournment, and lacked adequate particulars for new allegations.

Court Disposition

Amendment application refused

Orders

  • Application for amendment refused
  • The costs of the applicant's motion will be the respondents' costs in the cause