Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Internet Pty Ltd
Case No.
M98/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/12/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Jacobson J, Bennett J, Gilmour J)
[2012] FCAFC 190; [2013] FCAFC 37
Catchwords
Competition law – Restrictive trade practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct – False or misleading statements – Trade Practice Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (“CCA”) – Full Federal Court overturned in part decision of trial judge that TPG had breached the TPA and CCA – Advertisements represented that internet service could be acquired for $29.99 a month with no additional service or monthly charge and no set up fee – Service was only available in conjunction with a home telephone line that cost an additional $30 a month (the 'bundling condition), as well as upfront charges and a deposit (the 'setup fee condition') – Whether ordinary and reasonable consumer would have starting assumption that an advertised internet service was bundled with telephony services – Whether consumers must consider whole of an advertisement (including small print or quickly spoken detail) in order to correct what would otherwise be misleading headline representations.
Competition law – Penalties – Pecuniary penalties – Full Court reduced pecuniary penalty from $2,000,000 to $500,000 – Whether Full Court failed to adequately consider specific and general deterrence in imposing reduced pecuniary penalty – Whether reduced pecuniary penalty manifestly inadequate.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
01/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Barbaro v. The Queen
Case No.
M3/2013
Related matter
M1/2013 – Zirilli v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Harper JA & T Forrest AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown submission on sentencing range – Appellants convicted of conspiracy to traffic in commercial quantity of controlled drug and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment – Trial judge refused to hear prosecution’s submission on appropriate sentencing range and imposed sentences higher than the range the prosecutor would have proposed – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to hear the prosecution’s submission on sentencing range – Whether refusal to hear prosecutions’ submission on sentencing range constitutes a denial of procedural fairness – Whether prosecution’s submission on sentencing range was a relevant consideration in sentencing – Whether R v MacNeil-Brown (2008) 20 VR 677 is good law.
Documents
02/01/2013 Application for special leave to appeal
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
23/09/2013 Chronology (Applicant)
26/09/2013 Amended written submissions (Applicant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
30/10/2013 Amended written submisssions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) seeking leave to intervene)
27/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Zirilli v. The Queen
Case No.
M1/2013
Related matter
M3/2013 – Barbaro v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown submission on sentencing range – Appellants convicted of conspiracy to traffic in commercial quantity of controlled drug and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment – Trial judge refused to hear prosecution’s submission on appropriate sentencing range and imposed sentences higher than the range the prosecutor would have proposed – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to hear the prosecution’s submission on sentencing range – Whether refusal to hear prosecutions’ submission on sentencing range constitutes a denial of procedural fairness – Whether prosecution’s submission on sentencing range was a relevant consideration in sentencing – Whether R v MacNeil-Brown (2008) 20 VR 677 is good law.
Documents
02/01/2013 Application for special leave to appeal
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
02/10/2013 Written submissions (Applicant)
02/10/2013 Chronology
23/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
30/10/2013 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) seeking leave to intervene)
06/11/2013 Reply
27/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Kline v. Official Secretary to the Governor General and Anor
Case No.
B47/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/12/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Besanko and Robertson JJ)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Freedom of Information – Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Request for access to documents – Documents concerning appointments to the Order of Australia – Under s 6A documents that relate to matters of an administrative nature are exempt from the Act – Whether documents that relate to powers and functions of Governor General in administering the Order of Australia relate to matters of an administrative nature – Meaning of “administrative nature”.
Words and phrases – “of an administrative nature” – “substantive power or function”.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
29/08/2013 Notice of appeal
23/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
23/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
08/10/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
30/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Plaintiff M76/2013 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Ors
Case No.
M76/2013
Case Information
Catchwords
Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity - plaintiff's applied for refugee protection under non-statutory Refugee Status Assessment - Minister's delegate found plaintiff to be a refugee - transferred to community detention subsequently Department informed plaintiff she would not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4002 and not eligible for permanent visa as result of adverse ASIO risk assessment - whether detention of plaintiff is not for purpose authorised by or under ss189 &196 Migration Act - whether ss189 and 196 invalid.
Documents
05/07/2013 Application for an order to show cause
10/07/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
11/07/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
26/07/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
01/08/2013 Special Case Stated
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
23/08/2013 Written submissions (Defendants)
28/08/2013 Reply
04/09/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)