Free Law Dissertations - Case Note: Wa Pines Pty Ltd V Bannerman (1980) 30 Alr 559 Introduction This
Case Note:
WA Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 559
Introduction
This case was an appeal from the directed orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia that a paragraph in the appellant’s (WA Pines Pty Ltd) original statement of claim seeking declaratory relief under s163A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) be struck out and an appeal against the Federal Court judge’s refusal in reference to the appellant’s applications for the discovery, interrogatories and an order by way or particulars. The respondent, (Bannerman), cross-appealed against the original judge’s refusal to strike out another of the paragraphs of the appellant’s statement of claim.
The judgement of Brennan, J. sets out the facts of this case.
Facts of the case
The appellant instituted proceedings under s163A of the Trade Practices Act (Cth) seeking a declaration that a notice issued by the respondent Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission pursuant to s155 of the Act does not compel the appellant to obey the requirements as set out in the notice and therefore has no legal binding effect either in whole or in part upon the appellant’s duty to act in accordance with the said notice.
Section 155 of the Trade Practices Act states:-
If the Commission, the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing information, producing documents or giving evidence relating to a matter that constitutes, or may constitute, a contravention of this Acta member of the Commission may, by notice in writing served on that person, require that person
to furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a competent officerwithin the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any such information;
to produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf, in accordance with the notice, any such documents; or
to appear before the Commission at a time and place specified in the notice to give any such evidence, either orally or in writing, and produce any such documents.
The respondent recited in the notice that he had reason to believe that the appellant is capable of furnishing information and producing documents relating to matters that constitute or may constitute contraventions of the Act.
The appellant, in Paragraph 5 of their statement of claim declared that lack of definition of the respondent’s state of belief concerning the matters referred to in the notice was inconsistent with the state of belief required to attract the operation of s155 of the Act.
In Paragraph 6 of the statement of claim the appellant, in alternative, stated that the notice was issued without the Trade Practices Commission, the respondent or the Deputy Chairman having reason (or alternatively any legally sufficient reason) to believe any of the matters set out in s155 (1) of the Act.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
