Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 992

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 992

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because, whether the procedural ruling on onus of proof was final or interlocutory, leave to appeal was either unnecessary or not appropriate at this stage. Appeals on such issues should await the conclusion of the trial.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: The IMB Group Pty Ltd (ACN 050 411 946); Third Respondent: Logan Lions Limited (ACN 060 338 758); Fourth Respondent: Samson Neil Backo; Fifth Respondent: David John Ivers; Sixth Respondent: Luke Vincent Ivers; Seventh Respondent: John Lindsay Ivers; Eighth Respondent: Lance Thomas Stone; Ninth Respondent: Michael John MacLean; Tenth Respondent: William Anthony Musgrave; Eleventh Respondent: Robert Cowley; Twelfth Respondent: Glen James Ivers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Interlocutory Applications, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Appeals Interlocutory Applications Onus of Proof

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

The IMB Group Pty Ltd (ACN 050 411 946)

First Respondent

Logan Lions Limited (ACN 060 338 758)

Third Respondent

Samson Neil Backo

Fourth Respondent

David John Ivers

Fifth Respondent

Luke Vincent Ivers

Sixth Respondent

John Lindsay Ivers

Seventh Respondent

Lance Thomas Stone

Eighth Respondent

Michael John MacLean

Ninth Respondent

William Anthony Musgrave

Tenth Respondent

Robert Cowley

Eleventh Respondent

Glen James Ivers

Twelfth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted regarding a procedural ruling as to onus of proof made during trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because, whether the procedural ruling on onus of proof was final or interlocutory, leave to appeal was either unnecessary or not appropriate at this stage. Appeals on such issues should await the conclusion of the trial.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.