Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 416

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 416

Leave to serve Apple Inc in the United States of America was granted because the supporting affidavits identified the United States, the proposed method of service and its permissibility under the Hague Convention and California Code of Civil Procedure; the Court had jurisdiction under s 138 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); the proceeding fell within items 1, 12 and 15 of r 10.42; and the ACCC had at least a prima facie case against Apple Inc concerning the website representation and Apple Australia's alleged conduct on behalf of Apple Inc. Substituted service was not granted because it was not demonstrated that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Leave to Serve Originating Application and Other Court Documents Out of the Jurisdiction in an Australian Consumer Law Proceeding / Interlocutory Judgment on Service Out of Jurisdiction and Substituted Service
Outcome
The ACCC was granted leave to serve the court documents on Apple Inc in the United States of America; the application for substituted service was not made out; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['service Out of Jurisdiction' 'hague Convention Service' 'australian Consumer Law' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'substituted Service' 'prima Facie Case']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['service Out of Jurisdiction' 'hague Convention Service' 'australian Consumer Law' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'substituted Service' 'prima Facie Case']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Application for Leave to Serve Originating Application and Other Court Documents Out of the Jurisdiction in an Australian Consumer Law Proceeding / Interlocutory Judgment on Service Out of Jurisdiction and Substituted Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the requirements in r 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for leave to serve an originating application on Apple Inc in the United States of America were satisfied.' 'Whether the proceeding was within a kind mentioned in r 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.' 'Whether the ACCC had a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed against Apple Inc.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to serve Apple Inc out of the jurisdiction.' 'Whether it was not practicable to serve Apple Inc in a way required by the Federal Court Rules 2011 so as to enliven the power to order substituted service under r 10.24.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to serve Apple Inc in the United States of America was granted because the supporting affidavits identified the United States, the proposed method of service and its permissibility under the Hague Convention and California Code of Civil Procedure; the Court had jurisdiction under s 138 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); the proceeding fell within items 1, 12 and 15 of r 10.42; and the ACCC had at least a prima facie case against Apple Inc concerning the website representation and Apple Australia's alleged conduct on behalf of Apple Inc. Substituted service was not granted because it was not demonstrated that...

Court Disposition

The ACCC was granted leave to serve the court documents on Apple Inc in the United States of America; the application for substituted service was not made out; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant have leave to file and serve, by 4.00 pm on 28 April 2017, an amended concise statement. The page limit of five pages does not apply.' "By 4.00 pm on 19 May 2017, the first respondent file and serve its concise response to the applicant's amended concise statement. The page limit of five pages does...