Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 480

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 480

The applicant's pleading lacks sufficient particularity as to the making and implementation of the alleged price-fixing arrangement and relies improperly on discovery to fill these deficiencies, amounting to an abuse of process; accordingly, the further amended statement of claim should be struck out and leave to re-plead refused.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Mobil Oil Australia Limited; Second Respondent: BP Australia Limited; Third Respondent: The Shell Company of Australia Limited; Fourth Respondent: Noel Robert Constantine
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Strikeout Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory, Before Trial
Outcome
Application for strikeout granted. Further amended statement of claim struck out. Leave to re-plead refused. Applicant to pay respondents' costs forthwith.
Legal Topics
Strikeout Pleadings, Particulars of Claim, Price Fixing, Discovery Abuse, Parallel Pricing, Section 45 Trade Practices Act
Competition Law Trade Practices Civil Procedure Strikeout Pleadings Particulars of Claim Price Fixing Discovery Abuse Parallel Pricing +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Mobil Oil Australia Limited

First Respondent

BP Australia Limited

Second Respondent

The Shell Company of Australia Limited

Third Respondent

Noel Robert Constantine

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strikeout Application in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory, Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the further amended statement of claim adequately pleads and particulars an alleged price fixing arrangement;
  2. 2 Whether it is appropriate to rely on discovery to provide particulars;
  3. 3 Whether the pleading constitutes an abuse of process;

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's pleading lacks sufficient particularity as to the making and implementation of the alleged price-fixing arrangement and relies improperly on discovery to fill these deficiencies, amounting to an abuse of process; accordingly, the further amended statement of claim should be struck out and leave to re-plead refused.

Court Disposition

Application for strikeout granted. Further amended statement of claim struck out. Leave to re-plead refused. Applicant to pay respondents' costs forthwith.

Orders

  • The applicant's further amended statement of claim dated 7 October 1996 be struck out.
  • Leave to re-plead is refused.