Territory Stories






Law Society Northern Territory; PublicationNT; E-Journals




This publication contains many links to external sites. These external sites may no longer be active.; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).; Celebrating 50 years 1968 - 2018 Law Society NT




Law -- Northern Territory -- Periodicals.; Law Society of the Northern Territory -- Periodicals.

Publisher name

Law Society Northern Territory

Place of publication



Issue no. 1

Copyright owner

Law Society Northern Territory

Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

N O T I C E B O A R D L A W S O C I E T Y N T NOVEMBER C O M P E T I T I O N L A W | P R A C T I C E & P R O C E D U R E Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Challenges on appeal to inferences drawn and not drawn by the primary judge In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Egg Corporation Ltd [2017] FCAFC 152 (23 September 2017) the Full Federal Court dimissed the ACCCs appeal from the primary judges dismissal of the proceeding (see [2016] FCA 69). The ACCCs case was that the respondents attempted to induce egg producers to contravene s 44ZZRJ of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) by making an arrangement or arriving at an understanding which contained a cartel provision. The ACCC alleged that the respondents engaged in conduct which involved encouraging egg producers to act in a coordinated and consolidated fashion and, thereby, to enter into an arrangement or arrive at an understanding containing a provision to limit the production for supply of eggs in Australia. There was no challenge to facts found by the trial judge and the appeal largely related to inferences which the trial judge drew or did not draw from those primary facts. The Full Court (Besanko, Foster and Yates JJ) discussed the key authorities on the scope of the Full Courts review in an appeal in such a case (at [126]-[131]). The Full Court rejected all of the ACCCs arguments on the appeal. C O S T S Applications for indemnity costs Where parties failed to notify Court prior to judgment being reserved that alternative costs orders might be sought In Thomas v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 144 (18 September 2017) the Court rejected a taxpayers application to vary costs orders made after the judgment was given in four separate appeals. The taxpayer was successful in two of the appeals and, when giving judgment, the Court ordered that the Commissioner pay the taxpayers costs in those appeals. The taxpayer later sought to vary that order with an indemnity costs orders based on previous offers of compromise. At the hearing of the appeals, no separate Dan Star QC Federal Court Judgments