Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - [2003] FCAFC 224

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 224
CHRISTOPHER JAMES JONES v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION AND ANOR
V 598 of 2002
WILCOX, COOPER & ALLSOP JJ
13 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 598 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER JAMES JONES (as President of THE VICTORIAN FARMERS FEDERATION CHICKEN MEAT GROUP)
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

A & G MARVEN PTY LTD ACN 005 541 748
(formerly known as MARVEN POULTRY PTY LTD)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WILCOX, COOPER & ALLSOP JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (Heard in Melbourne)

THE COURT (IN ADDITION TO THE ORDERS OF 5 AUGUST 2003) ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent pay 75% of the costs of the appellant as applicant at first instance, such order not to affect in any way the order of Registrar Efthim made on 15 February 2002 that the appellant (as applicant) pay the costs of the first respondent of a notice of motion dated 5 February 2002 for discovery.

2.Order 4 made on 5 August 2003 dealing with costs of the appeal is intended to and does cover the costs involved in the argument as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 598 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER JAMES JONES (as PRESIDENT OF THE VICTORIAN FARMERS FEDERATION CHICKEN MEAT GROUP)
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

A & G MARVEN PTY LTD ACN 005 541 748
(formerly known as MARVEN POULTRY PTY LTD)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WILCOX, COOPER & ALLSOP JJ

DATE:

13 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY (Heard in Melbourne)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

On 5 August 2003 orders were made disposing of this appeal save and except for an order concerning the proper order for costs in respect of proceedings below.
From the terms of the reasons of the primary judge it was not clear to us that the point which succeeded on appeal had been clearly taken, albeit that it had been clearly made to the ACCC at the time of its authorisation considerations. Further, issues were debated before the primary judge, in particular the question of apprehended bias, which were not the subject of appeal.
In these circumstances we called for submissions from the parties as to the proper order for costs below.
From the material which has been filed it is evident that the fundamental point of the appellant which was successful on appeal was put to the primary judge. However, it is also apparent that there was a significant body of material before the primary judge and a real amount of costs incurred up to and during the first instance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCAFC 224
Decision Date: 13 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was heard by Justices Wilcox, Cooper, and Allsop. The appellant, Christopher James Jones, who was the President of the Victorian Farmers Federation Chicken Meat Group, appealed against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and A&G Marven Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the decision of the ACCC to authorise the takeover of Marven Poultry Pty Ltd by A&G Marven Pty Ltd, which Jones argued contravened certain provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved whether the ACCC had acted unlawfully in authorising the takeover, and if so, whether the court should order a specific outcome regarding the authorisation. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate costs order for the proceedings, particularly as it related to the costs incurred during the initial hearing.

The court's reasoning focused on the costs implications of the proceedings, particularly given the outcome of the appeal. The Full Court acknowledged that while Jones had succeeded on the fundamental point of the appeal, there was a significant amount of material and costs related to the issue of apprehended bias that was not directly relevant to the appeal. The court considered the submissions from both parties and decided that, in the interests of fairness and due to the lack of familiarity with the trial process, it was appropriate for the ACCC to pay 75% of Jones's costs at first instance. This order did not affect the previous order regarding costs related to a discovery motion. Additionally, the court's order for costs of the appeal covered the costs involved in the argument regarding the costs below.

The final orders were that the first respondent pay 75% of the costs of the appellant as applicant at first instance, with the understanding that this order did not affect the costs order made by Registrar Efthim on 15 February 2002. Furthermore, the order for costs of the appeal was intended to cover the costs involved in the argument as to costs below.

Orders