Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 4) [2016] FCA 382

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 4) [2016] FCA 382

Valve's application for a split remedies hearing is refused because it is likely to multiply the costs and complexity of the litigation, create inefficiency and multiple potential appellate hearings, and fragment the consideration of related remedial issues that are better addressed together.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Split Remedies Hearing After Liability Judgment, Prior to Full Remedies Hearing
Outcome
Respondent's application dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['split Hearings' 'remedies' 'appeal Procedure' 'declarations' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['split Hearings' 'remedies' 'appeal Procedure' 'declarations' 'costs']

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 / Application for Split Remedies Hearing After Liability Judgment, Prior to Full Remedies Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the remedies hearing should be split to allow declarations facilitating an appeal prior to determination of penalties and other remedies.']

Ratio Decidendi

Valve's application for a split remedies hearing is refused because it is likely to multiply the costs and complexity of the litigation, create inefficiency and multiple potential appellate hearings, and fragment the consideration of related remedial issues that are better addressed together.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application be dismissed." 'Costs be reserved.']