Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Limited v. Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd & Ors
Case No.
S33/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Beach and Colvin JJ)
Catchwords
Competition law – Arbitration determination – Third party access – Calculation of user contributions – Where applicant operator of Port of Newcastle – Where provision of access and use of Port shipping channels declared service pursuant to Pt IIIA of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – Where applicant levies certain charges payable by vessel owner or charterer in respect of use of Port infrastructure – Where first respondent coal mining company exported coal through Port via both own chartered vessels and vessels owned by other persons – Where first respondent sought arbitration by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) of dispute about quantum of charge – Where ACCC and Australian Competition Tribunal on review determined first respondent could not arbitrate terms on which other persons’ vessels carrying first respondent’s coal were charged – Where parties agreed ACCC use “depreciated optimised replacement cost methodology” to calculate asset base component of appropriate charge – Where ACCC and Tribunal on review decided s 44X(1)(e) required it to deduct historical service user contributions to Port infrastructure from asset base in calculation of charge – Where applicant unsuccessfully appealed to Full Court of Federal Court – Whether persons with economic interest in arbitration determination or who causes access to occur are third party for purposes of Pt IIIA – Proper approach to calculation of historical user contributions in charge.
Documents*
12/03/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/03/2021 Notice of appeal
30/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (First Respondent)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
18/06/2021 Reply
07/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra and by video connection)
07/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
07/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Third Respondent)
08/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia
Date: 02 March 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 47m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Huang
Case No.
S26/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Besanko, Thawley and Stewart JJ)
Catchwords
Practice and procedure – Freezing order – Where applicant filed originating application in Federal Court seeking judgment against respondent – Where applicant obtained ex parte worldwide freezing order against respondent’s Australian and foreign assets pursuant to r 7.32 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – Where respondent holds significant assets in China and Hong Kong – Where prospective judgment obtained against respondent not likely to be enforceable in China or Hong Kong – Where judgment subsequently entered against respondent – Where respondent successfully appealed to Full Court against freezing order on ground freezing order requires realistic possibility any judgment obtained by applicant can be enforced against respondent’s assets in relevant foreign jurisdiction – Whether r 7.32 imposes mandatory jurisdictional precondition on applicant to prove realistic possibility of enforcement in relevant foreign jurisdiction – Whether, absent realistic possibility, disposition of respondent’s foreign assets would frustrate or inhibit Federal Court processes and create danger of judgment being wholly or partly unsatisfied.
Documents
11/02/2021 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
25/02/2021 Notice of appeal
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
03/06/2021 Reply
06/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
13/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Namoa v The Queen
Date: 11 March 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 53m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Talacko v Talacko & Ors
Date: 10 March 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 5h 13m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.