Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 4) [2009] FCA 416

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 4) [2009] FCA 416

Because the issues in the Cadbury proceeding were to a large degree intertwined with those in the present proceeding, and all parties except Peter James Brown had consented to or not opposed relief, the Court considered that making the order was necessary to enable justice to be done in the Cadbury proceeding. Relief from the Harman undertaking was granted substantially as sought, with a temporary stay for specified Peter James Brown documents and provisos preserving legal professional privilege claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Motion on Notice in Proceeding Alleging Contravention of S 155(5) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Motion Heard and Determined on 24 April 2009
Outcome
Motion granted substantially in the terms sought, with modifications.
Legal Topics
['harman Undertaking' 'use of Documents in Related Proceedings' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'section 155 Examination' 'costs']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['harman Undertaking' 'use of Documents in Related Proceedings' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'section 155 Examination' '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

Motion on Notice in Proceeding Alleging Contravention of S 155(5) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Motion Heard and Determined on 24 April 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the Defendant to make the Harman Documents available to the Visy Corporate Respondents, Cadbury and Amcor for use in Federal Court of Australia proceeding VID 1377 of 2006.' 'Whether the order should preserve claims of legal professional privilege and protect the position of Peter James Brown by a temporary stay in relation to specified documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the issues in the Cadbury proceeding were to a large degree intertwined with those in the present proceeding, and all parties except Peter James Brown had consented to or not opposed relief, the Court considered that making the order was necessary to enable justice to be done in the Cadbury proceeding. Relief from the Harman undertaking was granted substantially as sought, with a temporary stay for specified Peter James Brown documents and provisos preserving legal professional privilege claims.

Court Disposition

Motion granted substantially in the terms sought, with modifications.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the Defendant to make available to Visy Board Pty Limited (ACN 005 787 913), Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 005 787 968) and Visy Industries Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 337 615) ("the Visy Corporate Respondents"), to Cadbury Pty Ltd ("Cadbury") and to Amcor Ltd and Amcor Packaging...