Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [1978] FCA 111

Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [1978] FCA 111

There were sufficient objective facts for a reasonable tribunal to infer the existence of the alleged arrangement or understanding among the defendants except Rex Freehold Pty Ltd, for whom there was insufficient evidence. The submission of no case to answer was overruled as to all defendants except Rex.

Parties
Plaintiff: Trade Practices Commission; First Defendant: Nicholas Enterprises Pty. Limited; Second Defendant: Saturno Holdings Pty. Limited; Third Defendant: Rex Freehold Pty. Limited; Fourth Defendant: Morphett Arms Hotel Pty. Limited; Fifth Defendant: Lion Bus Co. Pty. Limited; Sixth Defendant: Merit Nominees Pty. Limited; Seventh Defendant: Corporation Pty. Limited; Eighth Defendant: [Eighth Defendant]
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer rejected for all defendants except Rex Freehold Pty Ltd; upheld for Rex Freehold Pty Ltd.
Legal Topics
Collusive Arrangements, Penalties Under Trade Practices Act, Prima Facie Case, Evidentiary Rules
Competition Law Collusive Arrangements Penalties Under Trade Practices Act Prima Facie Case Evidentiary Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Plaintiff

Nicholas Enterprises Pty. Limited

First Defendant

Saturno Holdings Pty. Limited

Second Defendant

Rex Freehold Pty. Limited

Third Defendant

Morphett Arms Hotel Pty. Limited

Fourth Defendant

Lion Bus Co. Pty. Limited

Fifth Defendant

Merit Nominees Pty. Limited

Sixth Defendant

Corporation Pty. Limited

Seventh Defendant

[Eighth Defendant]

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case against each defendant for breach of s.45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether evidence supports inference of arrangement or understanding among defendants to reduce beer allowances
  3. 3 Whether directors' conduct can be attributed to corporate defendants under s.84 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

There were sufficient objective facts for a reasonable tribunal to infer the existence of the alleged arrangement or understanding among the defendants except Rex Freehold Pty Ltd, for whom there was insufficient evidence. The submission of no case to answer was overruled as to all defendants except Rex.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer rejected for all defendants except Rex Freehold Pty Ltd; upheld for Rex Freehold Pty Ltd.