Trade Practices Commission v The Gillette Company

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with two applications for leave to appeal against interlocutory decisions made by Burchett J. The Trade Practices Commission sought leave to appeal against a decision by the Gillette Company, an American corporation, which sought to set aside the service of the application. WSGAL Pty Limited, an Australian company, also applied for leave to appeal against a decision to not strike out the Statement of Claim. The Commission alleged that the respondents had breached s.50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by acquiring assets associated with the business formerly conducted by Wilkinson Sword Limited.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Statement of Claim was demurrable and whether the Full Court should become involved in matters of practice and procedure unless a point of general principle was at stake. Wilcox J considered the criticisms made by counsel for the applicants regarding the Statement of Claim and found that they were not made out. The court noted that the Statement of Claim clearly alleged a breach of s.50 and that the respondents were not in doubt as to the case being alleged against them. The court also rejected the argument that there must be a prima facie case in respect of each of a number of causes of action where service has been effected overseas.

Wilcox J held that the Full Court should not become involved in matters of practice and procedure unless some point of general principle was at stake. The court found that the cause of action pleaded in the Statement of Claim emerged with crystal clarity and that there was no general point of principle. The court held that an appeal would have little or no prospect of success and dismissed the notices of motion. The applicants for leave to appeal were ordered to pay the costs of the applications made that day.

The court's decision highlights the importance of clearly pleading a cause of action and the need to avoid unnecessary appeals to the Full Court. The court also emphasised the need to discourage unnecessary litigation and to minimise costs. The decision provides guidance for parties involved in similar cases and sets out the criteria for granting leave to appeal.