Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 630

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 630

Because this was a penalty proceeding and the second respondent could not be compelled to present its expert evidence before deciding whether to go into evidence, the Court would deal with Dr Walker's evidence in the applicant's case in chief first. The Court would not at that stage receive her expert evidence in reply, and would require clarification of her primary opinions, assumptions, reasoning and any opinions so that the evidence could be understood and assessed under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). If the second respondent later called expert witnesses, further orders would be made to deal with those witnesses together with Dr Walker as necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Penalty Case Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Ruling During the Applicant's Case in Chief on Objections to Proposed Expert Evidence
Outcome
No orders made; the Court indicated the procedure it proposed to adopt for receiving and managing the expert evidence.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'economic Evidence in Competition Cases' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'management of Expert Witnesses' 'trade Practices Act Market and Purpose Issues']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'economic Evidence in Competition Cases' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'management of Expert Witnesses' 'trade Practices Act Market and Purpose Issues']

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

Penalty Case Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Ruling During the Applicant's Case in Chief on Objections to Proposed Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["How the Court should receive and manage Dr Walker's expert evidence in chief and proposed evidence in reply." 'Whether and how expert economic evidence should distinguish assumptions, primary facts, disciplinary principles, reasoning and opinions for admissibility and fairness.' 'Whether expert witnesses should give evidence together or whether the second respondent in a penalty case may insist that the applicant close its case before deciding whether to go into evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because this was a penalty proceeding and the second respondent could not be compelled to present its expert evidence before deciding whether to go into evidence, the Court would deal with Dr Walker's evidence in the applicant's case in chief first. The Court would not at that stage receive her expert evidence in reply, and would require clarification of her primary opinions, assumptions, reasoning and any opinions so that the evidence could be understood and assessed under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). If the second respondent later called expert witnesses, further orders would be made to deal with those witnesses together with Dr Walker as necessary.

Court Disposition

No orders made; the Court indicated the procedure it proposed to adopt for receiving and managing the expert evidence.

Orders

  • ['No orders made.']