Dresna Pty Ltd v Linknarf Management Services Pty Ltd (in Liq)

Dresna Pty Ltd brought an application against Linknarf Management Services Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, in an attempt to establish certain facts regarding a deal between Franklins and Coles, and the existence of certain November 2001 dealings. The applicant sought to determine whether these deals would have influenced the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in blocking the sale of the Mentone store to Coles, and whether expedited hearings could have been granted in the Supreme Court proceedings, allowing the Lessor to assign the lease of the Mentone store to the applicant.

The court was required to decide several legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had established the existence of the alleged Franklins/Coles deal or the November 2001 dealings. Secondly, whether the applicant had proven that Franklins became aware of the Lessor/Coles deal on or around 15 October 2001. Thirdly, whether the applicant had shown that Franklins' knowledge of the Lessor/Coles deal was not disclosed to the applicant or the ACCC until 18 December 2001 during the Supreme Court proceedings. Fourthly, whether either of these "deals" being disclosed to the applicant or the ACCC would have led the ACCC to block the sale of the Mentone store to Coles. Lastly, whether either of these "deals" being disclosed to the applicant would have resulted in an expedited hearing being granted in the Supreme Court proceedings, compelling the Lessor to assign the lease of the Mentone store to the applicant.

The court found that the applicant had not established the existence of the Franklins/Coles deal or the November 2001 dealings. The court also found that Franklins' knowledge of the Lessor/Coles deal was not disclosed to the applicant or the ACCC until 18 December 2001. The court concluded that neither of these "deals" being disclosed to the applicant or the ACCC would have led to the ACCC blocking the sale of the Mentone store to Coles, or an expedited hearing being granted in the Supreme Court proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

The court dismissed the application, with costs.