Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Exclusive Media & Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1338

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Exclusive Media & Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1338

The convenience of the witnesses did not favour Melbourne over Brisbane in any meaningful way, the respondents' reliance on disparity of resources and choice of Melbourne legal advisers carried little weight, and because the considerations were fairly evenly balanced the fact that the proceedings had been commenced in Queensland supported refusing transfer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Seeking Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' Interlocutory Application to Transfer the Matter to the Victorian District Registry
Outcome
Respondents' application to transfer the matter to the Victorian District Registry refused.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'balance of Convenience' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'balance of Convenience' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Proceeding Seeking Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' Interlocutory Application to Transfer the Matter to the Victorian District Registry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter should be transferred to the Victorian District Registry.' 'Whether the balance of convenience of witnesses and the interests of justice favoured hearing the matter in Melbourne rather than Brisbane.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convenience of the witnesses did not favour Melbourne over Brisbane in any meaningful way, the respondents' reliance on disparity of resources and choice of Melbourne legal advisers carried little weight, and because the considerations were fairly evenly balanced the fact that the proceedings had been commenced in Queensland supported refusing transfer.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to transfer the matter to the Victorian District Registry refused.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application."]