Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) - [2009] FCA 1317

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) [2009] FCA 1317
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Motion to strike-out pleading under O 11 r 16 of the Federal Court Rules – Level of precision at which group member definitions must be pleaded in group actions – Level of precision at which a “market” must be pleaded in actions arising under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – Whether a global market can include a market in Australia for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O 11 r 16
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33H, 33J
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 4D, 4E, 45(2)(a), 45(2)(b), 45(3), 45A, 75B
Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (2008) 251 ALR 166, referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v April Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2024, referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Ltd (2008) 253 ALR 89, referred to
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697, cited
Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (WA) (1987) 13 FCR 413, cited
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658, cited
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, cited
Emirates v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2009) 255 ALR 35, cited
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited
HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp [1999] FCA 822, cited
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 569, referred to
Kernel Holdings Pty Ltd v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 557, cited
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd (1999) 165 ALR 409, cited
Mitanis v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-591, cited
Riverstone Computer Services Pty Ltd v IBM Global Financing Australia Ltd [2002] FCA 1608, considered
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2009) 260 ALR 244, referred to
State of Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 499, cited
Trade Practices Commission v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 109, cited
Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) (1979) 26 ALR 609, referred to
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 131 FCR 529, cited
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598, cited
Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG [2008] FCA 1510, referred to
WRIGHT RUBBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 075 384 100) v BAYER AG, BAYER AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 138 714), CHEMTURA CORPORATION, CROMPTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC and CHEMTURA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 005 225 507)
VID 882 of 2007
TRACEY J
13 NOVEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 882 of 2007

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:
WRIGHT RUBBER PRODUCTS…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] FCA 1317
Decision Date: 13 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Wright Rubber Products, and multiple respondents, including Bayer AG. The plaintiff, an Australian manufacturer of rubber products, alleged that the defendants, including several international corporations, conspired to fix prices and engage in other anti-competitive conduct in the supply of rubber products to the Australian market. The proceedings took place in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over matters involving breaches of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The legal issues before the court were centred on the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence provided by the plaintiff in support of its claim. The court had to determine whether the amended statement of claim was supported by the evidence provided and whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the defendants. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff had complied with the procedural requirements of the court in filing its amended statement of claim.

The court found that the amended statement of claim was not supported by the evidence provided and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the alleged anti-competitive conduct and that the amended statement of claim was insufficiently particularised. The court further found that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural requirements of the court in filing its amended statement of claim. As a result, the court struck out the amended statement of claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the strike out application incurred by the first, second, third and fifth respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The amended statement of claim be struck out.

2. The applicant pay the first, second, third and fifth respondents’ costs of the strike out application.

Note:

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

TRACEY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TRACEY J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 882 of 2007
GENERAL DIVISION