Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd

In the matter of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd, the applicant sought an order that the respondents' motion to file a cross-claim against a proposed cross-respondent be refused. The respondents had moved to file a cross-claim against the proposed cross-respondent for indemnity or contribution in relation to contraventions admitted by the respondents. The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the respondents could not rely on section 87(1A) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to claim indemnity or contribution, as this section is not intended to provide for such claims. The applicant further contended that if the respondents could provide evidence of the proposed cross-respondent's involvement in the contraventions, they should bring a separate action for indemnity or contribution.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents could rely on section 87(1A) of the Competition and Consumer Act to claim indemnity or contribution against the proposed cross-respondent. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the principles of equitable contribution. The court found that section 87(1A) does not provide a mechanism for the court to make orders for contribution or indemnity against other contravenors of the Act or persons involved in the primary contravention. The court held that the claims in the proposed cross-claim were ones for total indemnification, which is not permitted under the doctrine of contributions. The court also noted that if the respondents could provide evidence of the proposed cross-respondent's involvement in the contraventions, they should bring a separate action for indemnity or contribution.

The court held that the respondents' motion to file a cross-claim should be refused. The court found that the respondents could not rely on section 87(1A) of the Competition and Consumer Act to claim indemnity or contribution against the proposed cross-respondent. The court held that the claims in the proposed cross-claim were ones for total indemnification, which is not permitted under the doctrine of contributions. The court also noted that if the respondents could provide evidence of the proposed cross-respondent's involvement in the contraventions, they should bring a separate action for indemnity or contribution. The court refused the respondents' motion to file a cross-claim and ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs on the motion.