Bradken Limited v Norcast S.ár.L [2013] FCAFC 123

Bradken Limited v Norcast S.ár.L [2013] FCAFC 123

The Full Court declined to make the proposed consent orders because the proceeding was complex and of public importance, the primary judge had made detailed factual findings and determined novel and complex legal questions, the respondent did not concede appellable error, and the submissions revealed arguable grounds rather than operative or arguable appellable error to the degree necessary to justify allowing the appeal by consent without considering the merits.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia; Application to Make Consent Orders Disposing of the Appeal Under S 25(2 B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / Full Court Hearing of Application for Consent Orders
Outcome
The Court was not prepared to make the consent orders allowing the appeal and setting aside the primary judge's orders.
Legal Topics
['consent Orders Disposing of an Appeal' 'appellable Error' 'cartel Conduct' 'bid Rigging' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['consent Orders Disposing of an Appeal' 'appellable Error' 'cartel Conduct' 'bid Rigging' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia; Application to Make Consent Orders Disposing of the Appeal Under S 25(2 B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / Full Court Hearing of Application for Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Full Court should make consent orders under s 25(2B) allowing the appeal without adjudication on the merits.' "Whether the Court was satisfied that arguable appellable error or operative error was shown in the primary judge's decision." "Whether the complexity and public importance of the primary judgment affected the Court's assessment of the proposed consent disposition."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court declined to make the proposed consent orders because the proceeding was complex and of public importance, the primary judge had made detailed factual findings and determined novel and complex legal questions, the respondent did not concede appellable error, and the submissions revealed arguable grounds rather than operative or arguable appellable error to the degree necessary to justify allowing the appeal by consent without considering the merits.

Court Disposition

The Court was not prepared to make the consent orders allowing the appeal and setting aside the primary judge's orders.

Orders

  • ['The proposed consent orders under s 25(2B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) were declined.']