Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v True Alliance Trading Pty Ltd (formerly, Reebok Australia Pty Ltd) (No 2)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a case against True Alliance Trading Pty Ltd, formerly known as Reebok Australia Pty Ltd, which was concerned with the company's compliance with certain orders. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the Court should amend its final orders, particularly the requirement for the company to maintain a compliance program, given that the company was now inoperative and had no employees.

The court was required to consider whether the continued maintenance of a compliance program, as stipulated in the final orders, was still appropriate given the company's current status. The court had to determine if the exercise of its discretion under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.05(f) was justified, considering the circumstances and the purposes intended to be achieved by the compliance program. The court needed to assess if there were exceptional circumstances warranting the amendment of the final orders.

The court ruled that the continued maintenance of the compliance program would be an unfair and futile exercise, as it would require an inoperative entity to perform activities that no longer existed. The court found that there were exceptional circumstances that justified the amendment of the final orders. The court exercised its discretion to set aside and vary the final orders in a way that best promoted the just resolution of disputes according to law. The court concluded that the amendment would not detrimentally affect the rights or interests of third parties.

The court made several orders, including reducing the duration of the compliance program from three to two years, requiring the company's directors to attend compliance training, and mandating written confirmation of the training details. The court did not order any costs to be paid. The decision was based on the exceptional circumstances of the case, where maintaining the compliance program would have been an unnecessary burden and a futile exercise.