Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Section 83

Findings and admissions of fact in proceedings to be evidence

Location

Chapter 5 Enforcement and Remedies | Part 5 Other Provisions

View official version at Federal Register of Legislation

 

(1) In a proceeding against a person under section 82 or in an application under subsection 51ADB(1), 53ZO(1) or 87(1A) for an order against a person, a finding of any fact made by a court, or an admission of any fact made by the person, is prima facie evidence of that fact if the finding or admission is made in proceedings:

(a)  that are proceedings:

(i)  under section 77, 80, 81, 86C, 86D or 86E; or

(ii)  for an offence against section 45AF or 45AG or subsection 56BN(1) or 56BZI(1); and

(b)  in which that person has been found to have contravened, or to have been involved in a contravention of:

(i)  a provision of Part IV, IVB, IVBA, IVBB or IVE; or

(ii)  section 55B, 60C or 60K; or

(iia)  a civil penalty provision of a gas market instrument; or

(iii)  subsection 56BO(1) or 56BU(1), section 56BZA, 56BZB or 56BZC, subsection 56BZD(1), section 56BZJ or a civil penalty provision of the consumer data rules.

(2)  The finding or admission may be proved by production of:

(a)  in any case—a document under the seal of the court from which the finding or admission appears; or

(b)  in the case of an admission—a document from which the admission appears that is filed in the court.

 

Legislative history

Relevant cases

ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 3) [2005] FCA 265

Justice Goldberg

'SECTION 83

[para 114] The Commission initially applied for orders pursuant to s 83 of the Act. ...

[para 116] Where parties submit an agreed statement of facts, it may not be appropriate to regard formal admissions as findings of fact for the purposes of s 83. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Limited (No 2) [ [2002] FCA 559], Finkelstein J stated (at 183-184):

"The general rule is that formal admissions are only binding for the purpose of the particular case in which they are made: Dawson v Great Central Railway (1919) 88 LJKB 1177 at 1181-2. It is not clear whether a judge who acts on formal admissions is making findings of fact. I rather think he is not, because the purpose of an admission, such as may be made in a pleading, is to dispense with the need to prove the admitted fact. That is quite different from a case where the judge hears evidence and makes findings based on that evidence."

[para 117] In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Monza Imports Pty Ltd ➤ (2001) ATPR 41-843 Carr J did not make findings of fact for the purpose of s 83 on the basis that the facts had not been established and tested before the Court. At 43,440 he stated:

"I am inclined to the view that the Parliament intended ‘... a finding of any fact by a court ...’ to mean a finding made after a hearing. The apparent purpose of the provision is to save inconvenience and expense in requiring a matter to be proved more than once, but at the same time protecting the interests of a respondent by conferring on such a finding only the status of prima facie evidence in subsequent proceedings."

Carr J made similar comments in a related proceeding: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apollo Optical (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1456 ➤.

[para 118] Even if these statements were not correct, it would seem, as a matter of principle, that where evidence has not been tendered, but the parties rely upon statements of agreed facts which have not been the subject of critical analysis by the Court, it is inappropriate to make orders that would allow for an extended use of findings of fact, particularly use of those facts as prima facie evidence in related proceedings as envisaged by s 83. I therefore decline to make any orders under s 83.

Commentary

Ian Wylie, 'When too much power is barely enough – section 155 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and noblesse oblige' (2009) 16 Competition and Consumer Law Journal 314

[page 316] ... The provision ostensibly makes it easier for individual consumers to obtain redress in claims following on from successful ACCC action. However, the case law which has developed around s 83 has limited its utility. ...

... the weight of authority is to the effect that the section only covers findings made after a hearing ...'

Last updated: 5 June 2026