Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [2005] FCA 1134

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [2005] FCA 1134

Declarations of past contravention of the Trade Practices Act by a regulatory authority may be of public importance and serve a useful purpose even where injunctive or pecuniary relief is not available, but are discretionary remedies and may be withheld depending on factors such as delay. Directions for the provision of evidence should not infringe privilege against self-incrimination; however, it is not appropriate for the Court to grant leave in advance to rely on late evidence where privilege is claimed—applications for leave should be decided considering all relevant facts at the appropriate time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made, respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['declarations of Contravention' 'privilege Against Penalties' 'provision of Evidence' 'predatory Pricing' 'arrangements Affecting Competition']
['competition Law' 'trade Practices'] ['declarations of Contravention' 'privilege Against Penalties' 'provision of Evidence' 'predatory Pricing' 'arrangements Affecting Competition']

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

Application / Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is appropriate and of utility to grant bare declarations of past contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'Whether respondents not having privilege against exposure to penalty should be excepted from their obligation to identify the evidence they will rely upon']

Ratio Decidendi

Declarations of past contravention of the Trade Practices Act by a regulatory authority may be of public importance and serve a useful purpose even where injunctive or pecuniary relief is not available, but are discretionary remedies and may be withheld depending on factors such as delay. Directions for the provision of evidence should not infringe privilege against self-incrimination; however, it is not appropriate for the Court to grant leave in advance to rely on late evidence where privilege is claimed—applications for leave should be decided considering all relevant facts at the appropriate time.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made, respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the order made by the Deputy District Registrar on 8 March 2005 are vacated.' 'The fourth and fifth respondents are to file and serve any affidavits (other than expert evidence) within 45 days of the date of this order.' 'The first, second and third respondents are to file and serve any...