Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 148

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 148

Both proposed experts were amply qualified and no objection identified any particular problem with Michael Daniel or his independence. Given the task and the need to examine Woolworths' confidences and procedures, the Court saw no reason why the expert nominated by Woolworths should not be appointed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding Concerning Final Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Penalties / Argument Following Orders Made on 8 February 2007 About Appointment of an Independent Expert
Outcome
Michael Daniel of Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal was appointed as the nominated person, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the argument.
Legal Topics
['permanent Injunction' 'independent Expert Report' 'compliance Protocol' 'costs']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['permanent Injunction' 'independent Expert Report' 'compliance Protocol' 'costs']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding Concerning Final Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Penalties / Argument Following Orders Made on 8 February 2007 About Appointment of an Independent Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Michael Daniel of Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal should be the nominated person to carry out the work referred to in the orders of 8 February 2007.' 'Whether any costs order should be made for the argument on 16 February 2007.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both proposed experts were amply qualified and no objection identified any particular problem with Michael Daniel or his independence. Given the task and the need to examine Woolworths' confidences and procedures, the Court saw no reason why the expert nominated by Woolworths should not be appointed.

Court Disposition

Michael Daniel of Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal was appointed as the nominated person, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the argument.

Orders

  • ['The nominated person for the purpose of carrying out the work referred to in the order of the Court of 8 February 2007 be Michael Daniel of Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal.' 'Each party pay its own costs of the argument today.']