Phillip Morris Limited & Ors v Commissioner of Business Franchises

Phillip Morris Limited and two other companies, Statewide Tobacco Services Limited and G.P.M. Cigarette Distributors (Australia), were the plaintiffs in an action against the Commissioner of Business Franchises and the State of Victoria. The matter before the High Court of Australia was a summons for directions.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the procedure by which the factual disputes in the case should be determined. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether evidence could be presented by affidavit, or if oral evidence was mandated by the relevant legislation, particularly section 77H of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The plaintiffs sought leave to use affidavit evidence, while the defendants argued that the case should proceed on oral testimony.

The Court, in granting leave for the plaintiffs to use affidavit evidence, indicated that it would first ascertain the issues of fact by receiving such evidence. The Court acknowledged that while it generally preferred to avoid determining complex factual disputes, it did not appear that such difficulties would arise in this instance. The Court's reasoning suggested a pragmatic approach, aiming to efficiently identify the factual matters in contention before committing to a particular mode of evidence presentation. The Court also made it clear that it would not permit procedures that would unduly delay the resolution of the case.