FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mason v MWREDC Limited [2011] FCA 1512
Citation: Mason v MWREDC Limited [2011] FCA 1512 Parties: FRANK MAYNE MASON v MWREDC LIMITED, NARELLE PEARSE, NIKKI WRIGHT and IAN FLETCHER File number(s): QUD 501 of 2011 Judge: GREENWOOD J Date of judgment: 23 December 2011 Corrigendum: 3 January 2012 Catchwords: COMPETITION LAW – consideration of the application of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to the State of Queensland – consideration of s 2B of that Act – consideration of the construction to be adopted in relation to the definition of persons “involved” in a contravention in s 2 of Schedule 2 as a law of the Commonwealth by operation of s 131 in Part XI of the Act in the context of s 2B of the Act – adoption of the construction that the definition of persons “involved” in a contravention should not operate so as to extend the application of the Act to officers of the State of Queensland in circumstances where s 2B limits the application of the Act in the way described in that section
HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – consideration of whether the Court might be satisfied that a prospective applicant reasonably believes that he may have the right to obtain relief in the Federal Court as an exercise of federal jurisdiction having regard to relief sought under a State Act in the exercise of a State statutory power conferred upon a decision‑maker – consideration of whether such relief falls within the accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court having regard to the authorities on that question
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011, Rule 7.23
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 2B, s 86, Part XI
The Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2, Part XI of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)Cases cited: Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661 – cited
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 - cited
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 – cited and quoted
(Stack v Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261 - cited
Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367 – cited
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 – cited and quotedDate of hearing: 12 December 2011 Date of last submissions: 12 December 2011 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 128 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr N Francey Solicitor for the Applicant: Kelly Legal Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr A P Collins Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: McKays Solicitors Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr J E Murdoch SC Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Crown Law FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mason v MWREDC Limited [2011] FCA 1512
CORRIGENDUM
1In paragraph 76 of the Reasons for Judgement, the reference to “Ms Wright” should read “Ms Pearse”.
2In paragraph 97 of the Reasons of Judgement, in the third line, the reference to “Mr Turner was liable to…
Continue reading Mason v MWREDC Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mason v MWREDC Limited [2011] FCA 1512
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1512
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the extent to which the definition of "persons involved" in a contravention under section 2 of Schedule 2 of the CCA should be interpreted, particularly in relation to state officers. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to grant relief under a state statutory power conferred upon a decision-maker, and if such relief fell within the accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
In its reasoning, the court adopted a construction of the definition of "persons involved" in a contravention that did not extend the application of the CCA to officers of the State of Queensland. This interpretation was necessary to avoid the Act's application in a manner that would contravene the limitations set out in section 2B of the CCA. The court further found that the prospective relief sought by Mason under a state statutory power conferred upon a decision-maker did not fall within the accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that the Federal Court should only exercise its jurisdiction where the applicant reasonably believes they may have the right to obtain relief as an exercise of federal jurisdiction.
The orders of the court mandated that MWREDC Limited and Narelle Pearse provide Mason with various documents related to the trade mission, including invitations, cost disclosures, invoices, and communications. Additionally, Ian Fletcher, as the Chief Executive of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, was required to provide any relevant documents in his department's possession. The respondents were also directed to pay Mason’s costs and to confer on the terms and conditions of security for the provision of discovery. The court granted the respondents liberty to apply regarding the security terms and directed the parties to confer with a view to resolving these conditions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to Order 4, MWREDC Limited (“REDC”) and Narelle Pearse give discovery to Frank Mayne Mason (“Mason”) of the following documents:
1.1 any Board Paper (or Report or Memorandum submitted to or prepared for the Board of REDC) or an entry in a Board Paper or Report or Memorandum so prepared concerning the subject matter of the attendance of Mason at activities associated with a “REDC 2010 Trade & Investment Mission” to the People’s Republic of China (the “Mission”) including but not limited to:
(a) any invitation to Mason or permission given to Mason to attend the Mission or a document authorising him to attend the Mission (an example of which is a Registration Form for participation in Mission activities);
(b) any document disclosing the cost of attendance at activities associated with the Mission given to Mason prior to the commencement of the Mission;
(c) any invoice or other bill sent to Mason regarding his attendance at any activities associated with the Mission;
(d) any minutes or briefing papers concerning payment by Mason of any invoice or bill in respect of his attendance at activities associated with the Mission or any of Mason’s subsequent dealings with REDC or Ms Pearse in connection with the Mission;
1.2 any letters, emails or other communications between REDC and Mason or between REDC and the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation regarding payment by Mason of any invoice or bill concerning his attendance at any activities associated with the Mission or any of Mr Mason’s subsequent dealings with REDC or Ms Pearse in connection with the Mission;
1.3 any memos, file notes, records of telephone conversations or other documents of REDC or Ms Pearse concerning Mason and matters connected with the payment or claims for payment of any invoice or bill relating to Mason’s attendance at any activities associated with the Mission or any of Mr Mason’s subsequent dealings with REDC or Ms Pearse in connection with the Mission.
2. Subject to Order 4, Ian Fletcher (the “Chief Executive”), in his capacity as Chief Executive of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation of the State of Queensland, give discovery to Frank Mayne Mason (“Mason”) of any document or copy of a document falling within the description of documents referred to in Order 1, in the possession of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation of the State of Queensland.
3. The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application be paid by the first and second respondents.
4. The first, second and fourth respondents have liberty to apply in relation to the question of the terms and conditions of security to be provided by the applicant in connection with the provision of discovery by the first, second and fourth respondents and those respondents and the applicant are directed to confer with a view to resolving the terms and conditions upon which the applicant is to provide security.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.