Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 3) [2009] FCA 407

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 3) [2009] FCA 407

None of the four documents in question (the Revised Form of Proposed Order, Penalty Statement, Agreed Statement of Facts, Further Amended Defence) constituted an admissible admission under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for the purposes of the present criminal trial against Pratt, as they either did not contain a representation by or on behalf of Pratt intended to be an admission, or were expressly limited to the resolution of the previous proceedings (civil penalty proceedings) only, particularly in light of section 191 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, they were not admissible as admissions in the present proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Determination of Admissibility of Alleged Admissions
Outcome
Preliminary questions answered; documents held inadmissible as admissions; further directions hearing ordered.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'use of Pleadings in Subsequent Proceedings' 'section 191 Agreed Facts' 'trade Practices Act Contraventions' 'hearsay Rule']
['evidence Law' 'competition Law' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'use of Pleadings in Subsequent Proceedings' 'section 191 Agreed Facts' 'trade Practices Act Contraventions' 'hearsay Rule']

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

Criminal / Pre Trial Determination of Admissibility of Alleged Admissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents arising from prior civil cartel proceedings (including consent orders, agreed statements of fact, penalty statement, and prior pleadings) are admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings against Pratt as admissions under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the four documents in question (the Revised Form of Proposed Order, Penalty Statement, Agreed Statement of Facts, Further Amended Defence) constituted an admissible admission under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for the purposes of the present criminal trial against Pratt, as they either did not contain a representation by or on behalf of Pratt intended to be an admission, or were expressly limited to the resolution of the previous proceedings (civil penalty proceedings) only, particularly in light of section 191 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, they were not admissible as admissions in the present proceedings.

Court Disposition

Preliminary questions answered; documents held inadmissible as admissions; further directions hearing ordered.

Orders

  • ['The questions ordered on 2 December 2008 to be tried and decided separately from any other question and before any trial in the proceedings be answered as follows: Question 1: No. Question 2: Unnecessary to answer. Question 3: Unnecessary to answer.' 'There be a directions hearing at a date to be fixed.' 'Liberty...