• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

BUCHANAN J: 1 On 5 July 2013, I made orders against the respondent (HPA) with its consent, HPA having accepted that it had contravened ss 18 and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law (which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)). The circumstances leading to the making of those orders were explained in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 653. 2 The Court has now been informed that HPA will restructure its business and operations in a manner consistent with a global re-organisation whereby the ultimate parent company of HPA, Hewlett-Packard Company which is incorporated in the United States of America, will separate into two separate companies. The result of the separation will be that in Australia HPA will no longer manufacture and supply the computer products that are the subject of the orders. Instead, from 1 August 2015 HP PPS Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 603 480 628) (HPS) will manufacture and supply the computer products and will be the entity which should be bound by the orders made on 5 July 2013. 3 The applicant has informed the Court that it does not oppose the orders being amended to give effect to the respondent's proposal. 4 I am satisfied that the proposal gives continuing effect to the terms of the orders made on 5 July 2013 and that it is appropriate that orders be made varying those orders in the terms proposed by the respondent which are not opposed by the applicant. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.