W.A. Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman, Ronald Moore [1980] FCA 94

W.A. Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman, Ronald Moore [1980] FCA 94

The power to issue a notice under s.155 does not depend on the Commission or its Chairman having a belief that a matter constitutes or may constitute a contravention, but rather on whether the recipient is capable of providing information relating to such matters. A challenge to the notice requires substantive evidence questioning the Chairman's belief or grounds; unsupported allegations and discovery/interrogatories aimed at finding such evidence amount to fishing and do not warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of claim were properly struck out and discovery was correctly denied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge (toohey J.) in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['section 155 Notice—trade Practices Commission' 'practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'interrogatories' 'fishing Expedition']
['trade Practices'] ['section 155 Notice—trade Practices Commission' 'practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'interrogatories' 'fishing Expedition']

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 / On Appeal From a Single Judge (toohey J.) in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Validity of a s.155 notice under the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'Whether insufficient particulars or contradictory grounds invalidate the notice' 'Whether discovery or interrogatories should be ordered in proceedings under s.163A' "Scope and meaning of 'reason to believe' in s.155"]

Ratio Decidendi

The power to issue a notice under s.155 does not depend on the Commission or its Chairman having a belief that a matter constitutes or may constitute a contravention, but rather on whether the recipient is capable of providing information relating to such matters. A challenge to the notice requires substantive evidence questioning the Chairman's belief or grounds; unsupported allegations and discovery/interrogatories aimed at finding such evidence amount to fishing and do not warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of claim were properly struck out and discovery was correctly denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeals be dismissed.' "The cross-appeal be allowed; the order of Toohey J. varied to strike out paragraph 6 of the applicant's Statement of Claim." 'The applicant pay to the respondent his costs of the applications by the applicant and respondent.' 'The appellant pay to the respondent his costs of the appeals...