Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Black on White Pty Ltd t/as Australian Early Childhood College [1998] FCA 1569

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Black on White Pty Ltd t/as Australian Early Childhood College [1998] FCA 1569

The motion was refused because the questions as framed concerned the whole of the proceedings against the fourth respondent, and the reformulated proposal would require a hypothetical trial of the fourth respondent's actual knowledge of presumed contraventions by the first respondent. That course would fragment parties and issues, would not determine a discrete question of law, and lacked sufficient practical utility to justify departure from the ordinary rule that disputes involving proper parties should be tried together.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Act Proceeding Involving Alleged Contraventions and Alleged Accessorial Liability; Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of Questions / Motion by the Fourth Respondent Under Order 29 R 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Motion refused.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Questions' 'preliminary Issues' 'accessorial Liability' 'trade Practices Act Contraventions' 'case Management']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['separate Determination of Questions' 'preliminary Issues' 'accessorial Liability' 'trade Practices Act Contraventions' 'case Management']

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

Trade Practices Act Proceeding Involving Alleged Contraventions and Alleged Accessorial Liability; Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of Questions / Motion by the Fourth Respondent Under Order 29 R 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether questions concerning the fourth respondent's alleged aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring of contraventions by the first respondent should be determined separately before trial." "Whether the Court should determine the fourth respondent's alleged accessorial liability on the assumption that the contraventions alleged against the first respondent were established." "Whether trying the fourth respondent's knowledge of presumed facts would be an appropriate and useful preliminary inquiry."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was refused because the questions as framed concerned the whole of the proceedings against the fourth respondent, and the reformulated proposal would require a hypothetical trial of the fourth respondent's actual knowledge of presumed contraventions by the first respondent. That course would fragment parties and issues, would not determine a discrete question of law, and lacked sufficient practical utility to justify departure from the ordinary rule that disputes involving proper parties should be tried together.

Court Disposition

Motion refused.

Orders

  • ['The motion be refused.' "The costs of the motion be the Commission's costs in the principal proceedings against the fourth respondent." 'The applicant file and serve all affidavit material on which it wishes to rely against Respondents 2, 3 and 4 by 4.00 pm on 15 January 1999.' 'The fourth respondent file and...