Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2024] FCA 1237

Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2024] FCA 1237

The application for leave to appeal was refused because, even assuming arguable error in the primary judge’s construction of s 85A of the Reserve Bank Act, Mastercard did not establish substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Court found judicial notice under s 85A does not prevent parties from challenging or rebutting the statistical information at trial, and issues concerning weight, relevance, and admissibility remain for the trial judge.

Parties
First Applicant: Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd; Second Applicant: Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal – Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Notice, Statistical Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Competition and Consumer Act
Practice and Procedure Evidence Law Competition Law Judicial Notice Statistical Evidence Leave to Appeal Competition and Consumer Act

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd

First Applicant

Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal – Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court can take judicial notice of statistical information published by the Reserve Bank of Australia under s 85A of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Cth)
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'judicial notice' in the context of s 85A and its relation to s 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge’s orders on judicial notice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because, even assuming arguable error in the primary judge’s construction of s 85A of the Reserve Bank Act, Mastercard did not establish substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Court found judicial notice under s 85A does not prevent parties from challenging or rebutting the statistical information at trial, and issues concerning weight, relevance, and admissibility remain for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.