Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1032

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1032

Because the key meetings and conversations occurred over five years earlier and the credibility of participants was central, participants who gave evidence should give oral evidence about what took place and what was said, and respondents should be able to give oral evidence about reasons, motives, intentions and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty and Injunctive Relief Proceeding Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Applications for Directions as to the Future Conduct of the Action
Outcome
Directions made by consent and after determination of the form in which evidence-in-chief would be adduced.
Legal Topics
['trade Practices Act Civil Penalties' 'directions for Evidence in Chief' 'affidavit Evidence' 'oral Evidence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'no Case Submissions']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['trade Practices Act Civil Penalties' 'directions for Evidence in Chief' 'affidavit Evidence' 'oral Evidence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'no Case Submissions']

Source-derived case record

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 Penalty and Injunctive Relief Proceeding Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Applications for Directions as to the Future Conduct of the Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence of each party should be presented in written form and exchanged before the hearing or presented orally.' 'Whether the credibility issues, age of the relevant meetings and conversations, and penal nature of the proceedings required oral evidence-in-chief for fairness.' "Whether directions requiring respondents to file affidavit evidence should be qualified to preserve any opportunity to make a no case submission at the close of the applicant's case."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the key meetings and conversations occurred over five years earlier and the credibility of participants was central, participants who gave evidence should give oral evidence about what took place and what was said, and respondents should be able to give oral evidence about reasons, motives, intentions and state of mind for those meetings and conversations. For other issues, the Court's usual practice of affidavit evidence-in-chief should apply, subject to undertakings preventing the applicant from using a respondent's evidence on any no case submission or in the applicant's case if that respondent did not go into evidence.

Court Disposition

Directions made by consent and after determination of the form in which evidence-in-chief would be adduced.

Orders

  • ["By consent leave granted to the applicant to amend its statement of claim by inserting paragraph 20A concerning Hutchinson's alleged purposes in relation to entry into, or competitive conduct in, the Warwick concrete market." 'The respondents file and serve any amended defences by 5 January, 1996.' 'Any notices to...