| - | CATCHWORDS |
133
COSTS - successful defendants - abatenent of successful defendants' costs - fallure of defendants on c?rtaln issues In actlon f o r a penalty - cunduct of defendants.
| Federal Court. of Australla &L, | 1976 - 5.43. |
| TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION V. T.N.T. MANAGEMmT PTY. LIMITED &. | ORS. |
| NO. G.44 of 1978 | |
| W: Frank1 J. | |
| 1 March 1985 | |
| Sydney. |
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | ) | ||
| ) | |||
| NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
| ||
| ) | |||
| GENERAL DIVISION | ) |
| : | - | B |
| TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION |
Plaintiff
AND:
T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED
First Defendant
AND:
BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED
Second Defendant
AND:
MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED
Third Defendant
AND:
YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED
Fourth Defendant
AND:
ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES
| (OPERATIONS) PTY. | LIMITED |
Fifth Defendant
AND :
EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED
Sixth Defendant
AND:
| ASSOCIATE!D STEAMSHIPS | FTY. LIMITED |
Seventh Defendant
AND:
ESLEA HOLDINGS LIMITED, formerly
Ipec Holdings Limited
Eighth Defendant
AND:
ROADSWIFT TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED, formerly Interstate Parcel Express
Co. Pty. Limited
Ninth Defendant
O R D E R
JUDGE: Franki J.
DATE OF ORDER: 1 March 1985
WHERE MADE: Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Trade Practices Commission pay eighty-five percent of the costs, including any reserved costs, of each defendant except the fourth defendant which shall be paid its costs.
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | ) | ||
| 1 | |||
| NEW SOUTH W E S DISTRICT REGISTRY |
| ||
| ) | |||
| GENERAL DIVISION | 1 | ||
| Between: |
| TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION | Plaintiff |
-and-
| T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED | First Defendant |
| BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED | Second Defendant |
| MAYNE NICKLESS | LIMITED | Third Defendant |
| YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED | Fourth Defendant |
| ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES | Fifth Defendant |
| (OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED | |
| EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED | Sixth Defendant |
| ASSOCIATED STEAMSHIPS PTY. LIMITED | Seventh Defendant |
| ESLEA HOLDINGS LIMITED | Eighth Defendant |
| Formerly Ipec Holdings Limited | |
| ROADSWIFf TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED | Ninth Defendant |
| Formerlv Interstate Parcel | Exmess |
| Co. Pty: Limited | |
| M: Franki J. | |
| - | DATE: 1 March 1985 |
amsms FCR JUCGMENT
FRANK1 J.
Submissions have now been made on behalf of the parties
| in | this matter on the question of costs. | This | question was |
| reserved when I delivered | my reasons for judgment on | 12 February |
| 1985, |
.- . . .
2.
| Senior Counsel for the Trade Practices Commission | ("the |
Commission") asked me to exercise my discretion by abating the costs to which successful defendants are normally entitled. He
| suggested that those costs should be abated between | a | hird and a |
| half but | he did not deal with | the question of any possible |
| distinction | between | the | defendants. | He | identified | certain |
matters upon which he sought to rely and submitted that they were
"significant and disparate" issues. He said that the defendants
| had chosen | to fight those issues, that the Commission had been |
successful on them and that it would be appropriate to allow an
abatement in respect of them.
He put into this category the issues of the membership
of the National Freight Forwarders' Association, the identity and
authority of the representatives of the defendants at the three
meetings of the National Freight Forwarders' Association, the
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1985] FCA 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Franki J. examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the nature and extent of the alleged arrangements, their effects on competition, and the defendants' conduct during the proceedings. The court considered whether the defendants' actions warranted an abatement of costs, as requested by the Commission, due to the complexity of the issues, the length of the trial, and the defendants' conduct during the proceedings. The court recognised that while the defendants had the right to contest the allegations, their conduct in doing so had contributed to the length and complexity of the case.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the defendants were successful in defending against some of the Commission's claims but had failed on others. The court found that the defendants' conduct, while not amounting to misconduct, had contributed to the length and complexity of the case. As a result, the court exercised its discretion under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to order that the Trade Practices Commission pay 85% of the defendants' costs, with the exception of the fourth defendant, which would be paid in full. The court aimed to balance the need for deterrence against excessive litigation while ensuring that the defendants who successfully defended against some claims were not entirely absolved of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.