Case: Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Oraka Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-601
Outcome: cited
Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (inliquidation) (No 2) [2006] FCA 157 (27 February 2006) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Court of Australia You are here: &nbsp; AustLII &gt;&gt; Databases &gt;&gt; Federal Court of Australia &gt;&gt; 2006 &gt;&gt; [2006] FCA 157 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ Help ] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (inliquidation) (No 2) [2006] FCA 157 (27 February 2006) Last Updated: 28 February 2006 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (in liquidation) (No 2) [2006] FCA 157 TRADE PRACTICES form of relief indemnity for likely loss and damage pursuant to s 87 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 87 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (in liquidation) [2006] FCA 146) related Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Oraka Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-601 cited Oraka Pty Ltd v Leda Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR 41-558 cited State of Western Australia v Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245 cited Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514 cited AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v GLOBAL PREPAID COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 095 154 108) (IN LIQUIDATION), IN TOUCH NETWORKS PTY LTD (ACN 098 279 746) (IN LIQUIDATION), NICHOLAS YATES, FRANK YATES, NICHOLAS RHODIN, DANIEL ALBERT AND RUSSELL FIELDING NSD 328 OF 2003 GYLES J 27 FEBRUARY 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 328 OF 2003 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION APPLICANT AND: GLOBAL PREPAID COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 095 154 108) (IN LIQUIDATION) FIRST RESPONDENT IN TOUCH NETWORKS PTY LTD (ACN 098 279 746) (IN LIQUIDATION) SECOND RESPONDENT NICHOLAS YATES THIRD RESPONDENT FRANK YATES FOURTH RESPONDENT NICHOLAS RHODIN FIFTH RESPONDENT DANIEL ALBERT SIXTH RESPONDENT RUSSELL FIELDING SEVENTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I delivered reasons for judgment in this matter on 24 February 2006 ( Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (in liquidation) [2006] FCA 146) and stood the matter over until today to enable orders to be made. My attention has been drawn to the fact that I did not explicitly deal with the form of order for compensation to be made in respect of Loncaric and Carlon Pty Limited insofar as there was a claim for contingent loss. 3 I am satisfied that the terms of s 87 are wide enough to authorise the inclusion of orders which have the effect of indemnifying Carlon Pty Limited from claims by the sub-distributors. Burchett J made a similar order in Oraka Pty Ltd v Leda Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR 41-558. That judgment was set aside on appeal but not because of any fault in the relief granted ( Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Oraka Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-601). Beaumont J, who dissented in the Full Court, expressly approved that order (at 40,509). It was supported by the authorities referred to by Burchett J. (See also State of Western Australia v Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245 at 261 and Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514 at 545). Whether such an order should be made is for the discretion of the Court in each case.