Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods (No 6) [2013] FCA 1233

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods (No 6) [2013] FCA 1233

The ACCC was entitled to its costs on the usual basis because its rejection of Baiada and Bartter's offer was not unreasonable, it was under no obligation to warn them before commencing the proceeding, its unsuccessful claims under ss 55 of the TPA and 33 of the ACL were arguable and took relatively short time, and the relief it abandoned was ancillary to the pecuniary penalty and declarations it obtained. On apportionment, the ACMF's role at trial was relatively short but it called evidence and advanced distinct defences, so it should bear 20 per cent of the ACCC's costs and Baiada and Bartter should bear 80 per cent, excluding costs of claims against Turi Foods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determined on the Papers After Relief Was Granted Against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Outcome
Costs ordered for the ACCC, apportioned 80 per cent to the second and third respondents and 20 per cent to the fourth respondent, excluding costs incurred in prosecuting claims against the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'rejected Settlement Offer' 'contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Australian Consumer Law']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'rejected Settlement Offer' 'contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Australian Consumer Law']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / Determined on the Papers After Relief Was Granted Against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ACCC should receive its party and party costs on the usual basis' 'Whether the rejected settlement offer by Baiada and Bartter justified a departure from the usual rule as to costs' "Whether the ACCC's failure on some claims and abandonment of some relief justified reducing or denying costs" "How the ACCC's costs should be apportioned between Baiada and Bartter and the ACMF"]

Ratio Decidendi

The ACCC was entitled to its costs on the usual basis because its rejection of Baiada and Bartter's offer was not unreasonable, it was under no obligation to warn them before commencing the proceeding, its unsuccessful claims under ss 55 of the TPA and 33 of the ACL were arguable and took relatively short time, and the relief it abandoned was ancillary to the pecuniary penalty and declarations it obtained. On apportionment, the ACMF's role at trial was relatively short but it called evidence and advanced distinct defences, so it should bear 20 per cent of the ACCC's costs and Baiada and Bartter should bear 80 per cent, excluding costs of claims against Turi Foods.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered for the ACCC, apportioned 80 per cent to the second and third respondents and 20 per cent to the fourth respondent, excluding costs incurred in prosecuting claims against the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The second and third respondents pay 80 per cent of the applicants' party and party costs in the proceeding, including reserved costs, not including costs incurred by the applicant in prosecuting its claims against the first respondent." "The fourth respondent pay 20 per cent of the applicants' party and party...