Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 71

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 71

The application for change of the proper place was refused as there was insufficient reason to direct the proceedings be conducted or continued elsewhere, especially given procedural matters have proceeded smoothly in Darwin and public interest in the matter being heard in the Northern Territory.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Pauls Limited (ACN 009 698 015); Second Respondent: Malanda Dairyfoods Limited (ACN 068 031 550); Third Respondent: Australian Co-operative Foods Limited (ACN 010 308 068); Fourth Respondent: Alan Alexander McCray; Fifth Respondent: Barry Robert Jardine; Sixth Respondent: Richard Gordon Leong See; Seventh Respondent: Sydney Richard Morgan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory Application Regarding Venue and Registry
Outcome
Application to transfer proper place refused; application to change trial venue adjourned.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Proper Place of Hearing, Venue of Trial
Civil Procedure Transfer of Proceedings Proper Place of Hearing Venue of Trial

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Pauls Limited (ACN 009 698 015)

First Respondent

Malanda Dairyfoods Limited (ACN 068 031 550)

Second Respondent

Australian Co-operative Foods Limited (ACN 010 308 068)

Third Respondent

Alan Alexander McCray

Fourth Respondent

Barry Robert Jardine

Fifth Respondent

Richard Gordon Leong See

Sixth Respondent

Sydney Richard Morgan

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory Application Regarding Venue and Registry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the proper place of the proceedings be changed from Darwin to Brisbane?
  2. 2 Should the trial be held in Brisbane rather than Darwin?

Ratio Decidendi

The application for change of the proper place was refused as there was insufficient reason to direct the proceedings be conducted or continued elsewhere, especially given procedural matters have proceeded smoothly in Darwin and public interest in the matter being heard in the Northern Territory.

Court Disposition

Application to transfer proper place refused; application to change trial venue adjourned.

Orders

  • The application to transfer the proper place to the Queensland Registry is refused.
  • The application for an order that the trial of these proceedings be held in Brisbane is adjourned with liberty to any party to bring the matter back for further consideration on seven days notice.