ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 595

ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 595

There is no arguable basis for indemnification or contribution against the proposed cross-respondent under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), or in common law or equity, as the proposed cross-respondent was not shown to be involved in the respondents' conduct and the relevant statutory provisions do not empower the Court to grant the orders sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim Refused
Outcome
respondents' motion to file a cross-claim refused
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'cross Claims' 'indemnity' 'contribution']
['consumer Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'cross Claims' 'indemnity' 'contribution']

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

Civil / Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['whether leave should be granted to file a cross-claim against an overseas corporation' 'whether an arguable basis for indemnification exists under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'whether an arguable basis for indemnification exists in common law or equity']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable basis for indemnification or contribution against the proposed cross-respondent under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), or in common law or equity, as the proposed cross-respondent was not shown to be involved in the respondents' conduct and the relevant statutory provisions do not empower the Court to grant the orders sought.

Court Disposition

respondents' motion to file a cross-claim refused

Orders

  • ["The respondents' motion to file a cross-claim be refused." "The respondents pay the applicant's costs on the motion."]