FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Similar documents
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOTICE OF FILING AND HEARING

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356 (19 April 2013)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN PETTIT PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO A DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)

FULL TEXT OF JUDGMENT. AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v LEANNE RITA VASSALLO and AARON DAVID SMITH

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Scott & Taws v OZ Minerals class action NOTICE SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION AGAINST OZ MINERALS LIMITED

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE. Allen Dodd as trustee for the Dodd Superannuation Fund v Shine Corporate Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPERVISED LEGAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Victoria

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 28 November 2016

CLASS ACTION NOTICE TO GROUP MEMBERS BANKSIA SECURITIES LIMITED DEBENTURE HOLDERS

Federal Court of Australia

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002)

OPT OUT AND CLAIM REGISTRATION NOTICE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Treasury Wine Estates Class Action

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IMPORTANT NOTICE PROVIDENT CAPITAL LIMITED CLASS ACTIONS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND O.S. No. 801 of 1997 TOWNSVILLE

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Consumer guarantees under the ACL some key changes

Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd>> v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Ors [1998] FCA 1770 (31 July 1998)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

DEED POLL. Deed Poll by the party described in item 1 of Schedule 1 (Applicant), dated the date specified in item 2 of Schedule 1.

Written Submissions. Liquidation) ACN

Company law and securities

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD 1519 of 2004

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF AN AUSTRALIAN PRACTISING CERTIFICATE AS A VOLUNTEER SOLICITOR AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS PROVISIONS OF THE ACL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOTICE OF RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT RESULTING FROM MEDIATION

Alberta Human Rights Commission. Bylaws. Pursuant to section 17(1) of the. Alberta Human Rights Act

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Commonwealth of Australia & Anor v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Ors [1997] 664 FCA (18 July 1997) FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA>>

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST CATCHWORDS APPLICANT FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT WHERE HELD

State Reporting Bureau

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF AN AUSTRALIAN PRACTISING CERTIFICATE AS A SOLICITOR AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

2018/19 APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF AN AUSTRALIAN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AS AN AUSTRALIAN-REGISTERED FOREIGN LAWYER IN NEW SOUTH WALES

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO

Constitution for Australian Finance Group Ltd

For personal use only

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Redress Facilitation Orders As a Sanction Against Corporations

NOTICE OF FILING AND HEARING

NOTICE TO SCHEME MEMBERS OF FEA PLANTATIONS SCHEMES COURT PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING GROWERS' INTERESTS

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

New South Wales Supreme Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOTICE OF FILING. Details of Filing

REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CATCHWORDS. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 S.109 neither party effectively successful at earlier hearing Calderbank offer.

Hamilton Securities Limited (to be renamed Dawney & Co Limited)

Moresi Builders Pty Ltd (ACN )

For personal use only

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERM PROVISIONS: WHAT'S TRANSPARENCY GOT TO DO WITH IT?

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Key Cases on Breaches of the Model Litigant Rules

This hearing has been adjourned by the Federal Court to be heard on 23 October 2017 at 11.30am AWST.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

State Reporting Bureau

Audit Committee Charter. Bank of Queensland Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

MARK WILLIAMS BARRISTER-AT-LAW CURRICULUM VITAE. Mark was called to the Queensland Bar in March 1995 practising in Brisbane.

HORTA v THE COMMONWEALTH*

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES NO NSD 1519 OF 2004 DISTRICT REGISTRY

Green Building Council of Australia Certification Trade Mark Rules Trade Mark No Environmental Rating System for Buildings

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

State Reporting Bureau

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SHOOTING THE REPRESENTATIVE? INDIVIDUAL PENALTIES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTION MARK GIBIAN H B HIGGINS CHAMBERS LEVEL 6, 82 ELIZABETH STREET SYDNEY NSW 2000

Solicitor for the Appellant: M.L. Chalmers (The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)

Transcription:

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Green Plan Ltd [2010] FCA 1057 Citation: Parties: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Green Plan Ltd [2010] FCA 1057 AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v GLOBAL GREEN PLAN LTD ACN 109 417 825 File number: NSD 624 of 2010 Judge: BENNETT J Date of judgment: 29 September 2010 Catchwords: Legislation: TRADE PRACTICES practice and procedure breach of undertaking under s 87B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) orders previously made whether declaration should be made role of ACCC in administration of the Act Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 87B Cases cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Alvaton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 760 applied Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldy Motors Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1885 cited Date of hearing: 8 September 2010 Date of last submissions: 15 September 2010 Place: Division: Category: Sydney GENERAL DIVISION Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 13 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Free

Solicitor for the Applicant: Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Mr B Fried, The Law Offices of Barry Fried IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 624 of 2010 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Applicant AND: GLOBAL GREEN PLAN LTD ACN 109 417 825 Respondent JUDGE: BENNETT J DATE OF ORDER: 29 SEPTEMBER 2010 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT DECLARES: 1. That the Respondent (GGP) breached paragraph 14 of the undertaking pursuant to section 87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) given by GGP, and accepted by the Applicant (Commission) on 24 December 2009 (the Undertaking), by failing, within three months of the Undertaking: 1.1 to purchase, at its own expense, a total of 4,137 Renewable Energy Certificates (RECS) from one or more Greenpower generators accredited to supply RECS under the National Greenpower Accreditation Program (Purchased RECS); 1.2 to arrange for the immediate surrender of the Purchased RECS to the National Greenpower Accreditation Program; and 1.3 to provide documents to the Commission recording and evidencing such purchase and surrender of RECS. BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS: 2. GGP to pay the Commission s costs as taxed or agreed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court s website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 624 of 2010 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Applicant AND: GLOBAL GREEN PLAN LTD ACN 109 417 825 Respondent JUDGE: BENNETT J DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2010 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 2 June 2010 the applicant (Commission) filed a fast track application in the Court (the application) seeking declarations and other orders in respect of breaches by the respondent (GGP) of an undertaking given to the Commission by GGP on 24 December 2009 (the undertaking) pursuant to s 87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act). The application was supported by a fast track statement, also filed on 2 June 2010, setting out the contentions on which the Commission relied. On 28 July 2010 GGP filed a response admitting the essential contentions. 2 On 24 August 2010 orders were made by consent (the orders). The Commission now seeks, with GGP s consent, a declaration that GGP breached the undertaking it gave to the Commission (the declaration). The issue for the Court is whether the declaration should be made. THE APPLICATION 3 The factual background to the application, including the relevant parts of the undertaking, is set out in a statement of agreed facts signed by the parties on 31 August 2010.

Those agreed facts are: 1. During the period from about May 2006 to November 2008 (relevant period) GGP carried on a retail business known as GreenSwitch. 2. During the relevant period GGP offered for retail sale a renewable energy service involving the purchase and surrender of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECS). 3. RECS are certificates which represent units of energy generated using renewable energy (also known as green power or GreenPower ). 4. During the relevant period, GGP, through its GreenSwitch business, engaged in certain conduct, including making representations to customers and prospective customers that it would purchase and surrender (that is, extinguish) on behalf of its customers RECS corresponding to the renewable energy sales which it had made to customers under the National GreenPower Accreditation Program (NGAP). 5. During the relevant period GGP: 5.1 entered into agreements with customers with the overall effect that GGP agreed to purchase and surrender a total of 11,300 RECS; and 5.2 purchased and surrendered 7,163 RECS. 6. By reason of the conduct referred to in paragraph 5 above, during the relevant period there was a shortfall of 4,137 RECS which GGP had agreed to purchase and surrender but which it had not purchased and surrendered. 7. On 24 December 2009 the Commission accepted the undertaking given by GGP (as well as by its directors, Henry Clement Hewett and Donald Raymond Hewett) concerning the conduct of GreenSwitch. 8. Paragraph 14 of the undertaking provides (noting that Greenpower Program is a shorthand reference for the NGAP, as per paragraph 3 of the undertaking): GGP undertakes for the purpose of section 87B of the Act that it will, within three months of the date of the undertaking: (a) at its own expense, purchase a total of 4,137 RECS from one or more Greenpower generators accredited to supply RECS under the Greenpower

Program (Purchased RECS); (b) (c) arrange for the immediate surrender of the Purchased RECS to the Greenpower Program; and provide documents to the Commission recording and evidencing such purchase and surrender of RECS. 9. GGP did not, within three months of the date of the undertaking, purchase 4,137 RECS from an accredited GreenPower generator and surrender such RECS under the NGAP, as required by sub-paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b) of the undertaking. 10. GGP did not, within three months of the date of the undertaking, provide to the Commission evidence of the purchase and surrender of 4,137 RECS, as required by sub-paragraph 14(c) of the undertaking. 11. By reason of the matters in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, GGP breached paragraph 14 of the undertaking. THE ORDERS 4 The orders as made on 24 August 2010 were: 1. [The Court] [o]rders GGP: 1.1 to purchase, by 30 November 2010, a total of 4,137 RECS from one or more Greenpower generators accredited to supply RECS under the NGAP; 1.2 to arrange for the immediate surrender of the Purchased RECS; and 1.3 to provide documents to the Commission recording and evidencing the purchase and surrender of RECS in accordance with 1.1 and 1.2. THE DECLARATION 5 At the Commission s request, the Court listed the matter for a short hearing on 8 September 2010 for the purposes of determining whether it was also appropriate to make the declaration. The adjournment between the making of the orders and the hearing was considered necessary for the parties to prepare evidence in support of the application for declaratory relief.

6 The declaration, as sought by the Commission, is: 1. The Court declares that GGP breached the undertaking, by failing within three months of the undertaking: 1.1 to purchase, at its own expense, a total of 4,137 RECS from one or more Greenpower generators accredited to supply RECS under the National Greenpower accreditation program; 1.2 to arrange for the immediate surrender of the Purchased RECS to the NGAP; and 1.3 to provide documents to the Commission recording and evidencing such purchase and surrender of RECS. PRINCIPLES 7 The principles and authorities governing declarations of this kind and relevant discretionary factors have been considered by Gilmour J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Alvaton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 760 at [29] [37]. As relevant to this case, his Honour observed: An application for declaratory relief should be based on evidence rather than on the parties admissions (at [35]). A declaration must be directed to the determination of controversies and not to answering abstract or hypothetical questions (at [29]. The Court s power to make declarations under s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) extends to making declarations that a party has engaged in conduct in contravention of the Act (at [30]). Regard should be had to the public interest nature of proceedings instituted by the Commission and the Commission s public interest role in enforcing the Act (at [31]). Declarations serve to record the Court s disapproval of the contravening conduct, vindicate the Commission s claim in relation to such contraventions and assist the Commission in the future discharge of its functions under the Act (at [31](a) (c)).

The public interest may be advanced by a declaration in circumstances where conduct affected a large number of people over a period of time (at [32]). Declarations have an educative function by informing the community and market participants of the kind of conduct that may contravene the Act (at [33]). Declarations promote general deterrence and community-wide compliance with the Act (at [33] and [36]). The public interest outcomes delivered by declarations may not be provided by other remedies (at [34]). COMMISSION S SUBMISSIONS 8 Section 87B of the Act provides for the acceptance and enforcement of undertakings given to the Commission. Although the orders direct GGP to comply with the terms of the undertaking, the Commission submits that it is in the public interest that the declaration also be made pursuant to s 87B(4)(d), which states that if the Court is satisfied that the person has breached a term of the undertaking, the Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate. 9 The Commission contends that the procedure for the acceptance and enforcement of undertakings under s 87B is an important part of the machinery of the Act. The Commission submits that the declaration provides the basis for the orders and explains the contravention, that is, that the undertaking has been breached. This will, the Commission says, assist in maintaining the integrity of the process of the giving and acceptance of undertakings, make it clear to the public that the Commission will take action if an undertaking is breached and reinforce the Commission s authority in accepting and enforcing undertakings. The Commission submits that the declaration is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and is in the public interest, having regard to the principles in Alvaton. 10 The Commission contends that the orders, while important, do not serve these public interest objectives in the same way as would the declaration. The orders are prospective in operation and require GGP to take steps to rectify the underlying conduct (that

is, the failure to purchase and surrender RECS). The declaration is addressed to a different matter, being the past breach of the undertaking by GGP. Declaring that a breach has occurred will indicate to the community (including past and future consumers as well as market participants) that undertakings accepted under s 87B of the Act are solemn and enforceable and that the Commission will take enforcement action in the event of noncompliance with an undertaking. 11 The Commission also submits that, given the proceedings have been resolved by admissions and consent orders, the declaration will provide a clear record of the basis for the orders. CONCLUSION 12 I am satisfied that the statement of agreed facts provides a sufficient evidentiary basis for the declaration. I am satisfied that the Commission, as the public body charged with enforcing the Act, has a real interest in seeking the declaration (Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 at [38], Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Goldy Motors Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1885 at [30]) despite the fact that it relates to past conduct. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the declaration in the public interest for the reasons advanced by the Commission, which are consistent with the reasons in Alvaton. 13 The Commission does not press for other orders sought in the application save for an order for costs, to which GGP consents. I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett. Associate: Dated: 29 September 2010