Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v FFE Building Services Limited [2003] FCA 330

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v FFE Building Services Limited [2003] FCA 330

Discovery in respect of alleged contraventions prior to 17 October 1996 is ordered only to the extent directly relevant to materially alleged conduct, arrangements and meetings specified in the pleadings, given the potential ongoing relevance for declaratory and injunctive relief and the necessity principle under Order 15; general discovery prior to that date is not warranted given the burden and restricted utility for relief.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission; First Respondent: FFE Building Services Limited (Formerly Chubb Building Services Limited, Formerly James Hardie Building Services Pty Limited) Trading as Fire Fighting Enterprises Pty Limited (ACN 000 067 541); Second Respondent: Tyco Australia Pty Ltd (Formerly Wormald Australia Pty Limited) Trading as Wormald Fire Systems (ACN 008 399 004); Third Respondent: Australian Fire Services (SA) Pty Limited (ACN 055 395 401); Fourth Respondent: Australian Fire Services Pty Limited (ACN 068 356 338); Fifth Respondent: On-Line Fire Protection Pty Ltd (ACN 050 207 175); Sixth Respondent: Michael Rodney Boyce; Seventh Respondent: Shane Steven Bowbridge; Eighth Respondent: Francisus Wilhelmus Jacobus Geurts; Ninth Respondent: Reginald George Kenneth Nealie; Tenth Respondent: Louise Gray Rowe; Eleventh Respondent: Angelo D'Alfonso; Twelfth Respondent: Gary Russell Garlick; Thirteenth Respondent: Graham London; Fourteenth Respondent: Robert John Crosby
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Discovery and Procedural Orders in Civil Proceedings Under the Trade Practices Act / Interlocutory Decision on Discovery Orders
Outcome
Discovery ordered as specified; application for broad discovery refused in part.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Restraint of Anti Competitive Conduct, Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, Pecuniary Penalties, Time Limitation
Competition Law Procedure Discovery Restraint of Anti Competitive Conduct Injunctive Relief Declaratory Relief Pecuniary Penalties Time Limitation

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Applicant

FFE Building Services Limited (Formerly Chubb Building Services Limited, Formerly James Hardie Building Services Pty Limited) Trading as Fire Fighting Enterprises Pty Limited (ACN 000 067 541)

First Respondent

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd (Formerly Wormald Australia Pty Limited) Trading as Wormald Fire Systems (ACN 008 399 004)

Second Respondent

Australian Fire Services (SA) Pty Limited (ACN 055 395 401)

Third Respondent

Australian Fire Services Pty Limited (ACN 068 356 338)

Fourth Respondent

On-Line Fire Protection Pty Ltd (ACN 050 207 175)

Fifth Respondent

Michael Rodney Boyce

Sixth Respondent

Shane Steven Bowbridge

Seventh Respondent

Francisus Wilhelmus Jacobus Geurts

Eighth Respondent

Reginald George Kenneth Nealie

Ninth Respondent

Louise Gray Rowe

Tenth Respondent

Angelo D'Alfonso

Eleventh Respondent

Gary Russell Garlick

Twelfth Respondent

Graham London

Thirteenth Respondent

Robert John Crosby

Fourteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Discovery and Procedural Orders in Civil Proceedings Under the Trade Practices Act / Interlocutory Decision on Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of discovery for alleged contraventions of Trade Practices Act prior to and after 17 October 1996
  2. 2 Relevance of allegations and evidence prior to limitation date for injunctive and declaratory relief
  3. 3 Necessity under Order 15 rules for discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery in respect of alleged contraventions prior to 17 October 1996 is ordered only to the extent directly relevant to materially alleged conduct, arrangements and meetings specified in the pleadings, given the potential ongoing relevance for declaratory and injunctive relief and the necessity principle under Order 15; general discovery prior to that date is not warranted given the burden and restricted utility for relief.

Court Disposition

Discovery ordered as specified; application for broad discovery refused in part.

Orders

  • FFE Building Services Limited and On-Line Fire Protection Pty Ltd to give discovery of documents relevant to matters alleged after 17 October 1996.
  • FFE and OFP to give discovery limited to documents directly relating to and referring to 'the First Meeting' per paragraph 22 of the statement of claim, participation or proposed participation of OFP, meetings of persons named in paragraph 28.6, tenders relating to Schedule 1 and certain items in Schedule 2,...