The Trade Practices Commission v Milreis Pty Ltd - [1978] FCA 3

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ ..

I ........ ....

.....

____ .

...... -

......

.- - . . -

...

- - _.

- /

BETI.TEICT? : ........ ........ ........ ........

THE TRADE PRACTICES

’

....	CDrnISSLQN.. ........ ......

........ ........ ...

F . h W J f L . .

NiD

. . . . .

PZT49FJS. RPTY,. m!ITF?.

.e, .PS.

........ ........ ........ ........

Defendants

........ ........ ........ ........

APPLICATION BY THOMSON PUBLICATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED

1 !

O R D E R	i
!
i
c

1m COLTT 03ZZS Tii4T:

1. The applicant be added as a defendant

2. The questlon of costs be reserved.

Dai e Enter& :

..... .......

........ ......

- - .-

.....

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices Act

- Adding party as

defe'ndant who is

directly affected - Hlgh Court Rule Order

16 rule 4 -

Rules of the Federal

Court of Australia.

The Trade Practices Commlsslon

v. Milreis Pty. Limited

Application by Thomson Publications (Australia)

Pty. Limited

G306, of 1975

Before Franki J.

16 February 1978

SYDNEY.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA )

No. G. 306 of 1975

GENERAL DIVISION

Between

THE TRADE PRACTICES CON”IMSSION

Plaintiff

And

MILREIS PTY. LIMITED & ORS.

Defendants

APPLICATION BY THOMSON PUBLICATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY.

LIMITED

FRANK1

JUDGMENT:

FOR

REASONS

DELIVERED:

16 February 1978.

Thomson Publicatlons (Australia)

Pty. Limited

(%he

applicanf) seeks leave to be added as

a party, or to inter-

vene, or to make submisslons as amicus curiae

in proceedings

under the Trade Practices Act

1974 (‘the Act’) brought by the

Trade Practices Commission against

109 de€endants seeking

pecuniary penalties, lnjunctions and costs. The statement

claim alleged that

107 of the defendants were trading corporations

retailing liquor from premises described as hotel premises.

Broadly it was alleged that the corporation defendants were parties

to an arrangement whereby from time to time they recommended

each other prices at which liquor may be sold to the public from

licensed hotel premises operated by

or on behalf of the parties

to the alleged arrangement. Alternatively, it was alleged that the corporation defendants were parties to an understanding of the

same nature and

for the same purpose as the arrangement alleged.

, .

I .

The.section of the Act dealing with arrangements

o r understandings

in restraint of trade was s.45 whlch was repealed and new sections

45, 45A, 45B and 45C were introduced, operafive from

1 July 1977.

Certain defendants unsuccessfully attacked the validity

of s.45

in proceedings before the	Full Court	of the Federal Court	of
Australia (14 A.L.R. 623).

Subsequently consent orders were made

In respect of

the

lOlst defendant, Travelcare

Pty. Limited.

The matter then came into my list and

I was informed.

that

four other defendants had signed terms of settlement and

I was

requested to make orders and accept undertakings

in terms of the

settlements signed. The four defendants were, the 16th, Cadea

(No. 5) Pty. Limited; the…

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.

Continue reading The Trade Practices Commission v Milreis Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: The Trade Practices Commission v Milreis Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 3
Case: [1978] FCA 3
Decision Date: 16 Feb 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Trade Practices Commission initiated proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Milreis Pty Limited and others, seeking pecuniary penalties, injunctions, and costs under the Trade Practices Act 1974. The Commission alleged that the defendants were involved in an arrangement to recommend prices for liquor sold at licensed hotel premises, which was in restraint of trade. Thomson Publications (Australia) Pty Limited applied to intervene in the proceedings, seeking to be added as a party, intervene, or be heard as amicus curiae. The company argued that its rights would be directly affected by the orders sought, as it published a liquor guide containing suggested retail prices for alcoholic drinks.

The court considered whether the applicant could be added as a party under Order 16 rule 4 of the High Court Rules, which allows for the addition of parties who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectively adjudicate on the questions arising. The court found that the applicant's rights would be directly affected by the injunction proposed in the terms of settlement, as it would be at risk of contempt proceedings if it supplied further copies of its liquor guide to any defendant in respect of whom the order was made.

The court held that the High Court Rules permit the addition of the applicant as a party and that the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The court ordered that the applicant be added as a defendant and reserved the question of costs. The court also gave leave to any party to address any consequential orders they may seek.

In conclusion, the Federal Court of Australia granted the application by Thomson Publications (Australia) Pty Limited to be added as a defendant in the proceedings initiated by the Trade Practices Commission against Milreis Pty Limited and others. The court found that the applicant's rights would be directly affected by the orders sought, and it was appropriate to add the applicant as a party to ensure that all relevant issues were considered before making the orders. The court reserved the question of costs and gave leave to any party to address any consequential orders they may seek.

Orders