Miller's Australian Competition & Consumer Law Annotated 2017. [39 ed.] 9780455500140, 0455500142

Citation preview

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 19 Harris Street PYRMONT NSW 2009 Tel: (02) 8587 7000 Fax: (02) 8587 7100 [email protected] http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au For all customer inquiries please ring 1300 304 195 (for calls within Australia only) INTERNATIONAL AGENTS & DISTRIBUTORS NORTH AMERICA Thomson Reuters Eagan United States of America

ASIA PACIFIC Thomson Reuters Sydney Australia

LATIN AMERICA Thomson Reuters São Paulo Brazil

EUROPE Thomson Reuters London United Kingdom

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated 39TH EDITION

by RUSSELL V MILLER AM LLB (Hons) Senior Advisor in Competition Policy and Regulation, Centre for Strategy and Governance Member, Minter Ellison Australasian Competition Group

by ROD SIMS Chairman Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

LAWBOOK CO. 2017

Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 19 Harris Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009 First edition ........................................... second impression .............................. Second edition ....................................... Third edition ......................................... Fourth edition ........................................ Fifth edition .......................................... Sixth edition .......................................... Seventh edition ...................................... Eighth edition ........................................ Ninth edition ......................................... Tenth edition ......................................... Eleventh edition..................................... second impression .............................. Twelfth edition ...................................... second impression .............................. third impression ................................. Thirteenth edition .................................. Fourteenth edition .................................. Fifteenth edition .................................... Sixteenth edition .................................... Seventeeth edition.................................. Eighteenth edition ..................................

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1992 1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Nineteenth edition.................................. Twentieth edition ................................... Twenty-first edition ................................ Twenty-second edition............................ Twenty-third edition ............................... Twenty-fourth edition ............................. Twenty-fifth edition ............................... Twenty-sixth edition .............................. Twenty-seventh edition........................... Twenty-eighth edition ............................ Twenty-ninth edition .............................. Thirtieth edition ..................................... Thirty-first edition.................................. Thirty-second edition ............................. Thirty-third edition ................................ Thirty-fourth edition .............................. Thirty-fifth edition ................................. Thirty-sixth edition ................................ Thirty-seventh edition ............................ Thirty-eighth edition .............................. Thirty-ninth edition ................................

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 June 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry ISSN 1466-0130 ISBN 978–0–455–50014–0 © 2017 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. All ACCC material in this book is reproduced by permission. It is subject to Commonwealth of Australia copyright. Product Developer: Catherine Fitzgerald Project Editors: Prudence Allan, Vanessa Schlenert Editorial and Production Team: Angela Bandiera, Paul Godwin, David Graham, Jinhong Tang, Sonia Tulse Index: Puddingburn Publishing Services Pty Ltd Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd, Riverwood, NSW, Australia This book has been printed on paper certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). PEFC is committed to sustainable forest management through third party forest certification of responsibly managed forests. For more info: www.pefc.org.

FOREWORD By Rod Sims Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission January 2017 Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated is a constant companion of so many people in all ACCC meetings so I am delighted to introduce the 39th edition. Whether the reader is seeking to understand court outcomes, tribunal decisions or legislative changes, Millers paints a clear picture of Australia’s competition and consumer laws. The profit motive provides a powerful incentive for businesses to outdo each other on price, product and service. The profit motive can greatly benefit us all as consumers, but this can only occur if there is broad compliance with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act). For this to occur there also has to be strong and visible enforcement of the Act so that businesses know and respect what they can and cannot do, and consumers can have faith in the operation of the market economy. First criminal cartel prosecution under the Act This edition of Miller’s contains a reference to a significant milestone for the Act; the first criminal cartel prosecution against a corporation under s 44ZZRG. On 14 July 2016, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) laid criminal charges against Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK), a global shipping company based in Japan in relation to a cartel involving the shipment of cars, trucks, and buses to Australia.1 NYK subsequently pleaded guilty and a sentencing hearing will occur in April 2017. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) investigates cartel conduct, manages the immunity process, and refers serious cartel conduct to the CDPP to consider prosecution. Amendments criminalising cartel conduct came into force in July 2009 and the ACCC has taken a deliberately cautious approach in order to lay strong foundations for a continuing program of cases. Indeed, in November 2016, the CDPP laid criminal charges against a second company, Japanese-based Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line), alleging involvement in the same cartel. High Court rules on online competition In late 2016, the High Court of Australia allowed the ACCC’s appeal in relation to Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd’s attempt to induce three international airlines to enter into price-fixing arrangements between 2005 and 2009 in relation to air fares offered online by the airlines that were cheaper than those offered by Flight Centre.2 At the core of the matter was the question of whether Flight Centre and the airlines are legally considered to be competitors. The ACCC brought the case because it considered that they were in competition with one another to sell flights to consumers, and the High Court agreed. The High Court decision will provide important guidance for the application of competition laws in Australia to other situations where competing offers are made directly to consumers by both agents and their principals. It is likely to be particularly relevant when businesses make online sales in competition with their agents. The matter will now return to the Full Federal Court for determination of the appeal and cross-appeal in relation to penalty brought by the parties. Harper reforms take shape In another major development, the government is taking steps to amend the Act to implement a broad range of reforms as recommended by the Harper Review. In December 2016, the government introduced a Bill containing amendments to the misuse of market power provisions (s 46) of the Act. The Bill also includes “consequential amendments” to repeal the telecommunications anti-competitive conduct provisions in Part © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

v

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

XIB of the Act. The government intends to introduce the remaining amendments covered in its Exposure Draft into parliament in early 2017. This includes proposed changes creating a prohibition against concerted practices that substantially lessen competition as well as key changes to the merger and non-merger authorisation and the notification provisions, as well as the National Access Regime in Part IIIA. Separately, the ACCC has acted on the Harper Review recommendations by updating our guidelines on the use of s 155 powers and implementing a Media Code of Conduct. Penalties must be relevant Specific and general deterrence is a critical objective of pecuniary penalties. To deter future contraventions, both the statutory maximum penalty and the penalties imposed by the Courts should act as a strong deterrent. For example, the ACCC has appealed the penalties imposed by the trial judge in the long-running Cement Australia case. We will argue to the Full Court of the Federal Court that the $17.1 million in penalties imposed against Cement Australia are inadequate, and not of appropriate deterrent value; we had submitted that penalties of more than $90 million were appropriate. Penalties must be commercially relevant and high enough for businesses not to see them as merely an acceptable cost of doing business. The same logic applies to penalties in consumer cases. At first instance, the Federal Court found Reckitt Benckiser Pty Ltd engaged in misleading conduct between 2011 and 2015 by making representations that Nurofen Specific Pain products were each formulated to specifically treat a particular type of pain, when this was not the case, and imposed penalties of $1.7 million. On appeal, the ACCC submitted to the Full Court that this level of penalty imposed on a company the size of Reckitt Benckiser did not act as an adequate deterrent, particularly in light of the widespread nature of the conduct and the substantial sales and profit associated with the misconduct. In December, the Full Court upheld the ACCC’s appeal and ordered a penalty of $6 million. This is the highest penalty awarded under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading conduct. On a different front, the Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) review of the ACL is considering whether the ACL penalty regime remains appropriate. The ACCC considers that the current $1.1 million maximum penalties available for most contraventions of the ACL are too low to have a sufficient deterrent effect, particularly for large corporations. The ACCC considers that the maximum consumer law penalties should be comparable to those for contraventions of the competition laws. CAANZ is considering many issues as part of the review and will hand down a report in March 2017. The Productivity Commission is also examining the regulatory model underpinning the ACL with a report also expected in March. Signalling and delivering on priorities We have had several standout outcomes in enforcement proceedings decided this year. Each year we are clearly signalling our enforcement and compliance priorities, and acting to address consumer harm. Product safety is a prime example. In early 2016, the Federal Court ordered Woolworths Ltd to pay more than $3 million in penalties for breaches of the ACL relating to safety issues with house brand products.3 The defects in Woolworths’ products caused serious injuries, including burns from hot oil when the handle of the deep fryer broke and chemical burns caused by a defective cap on bottles of drain cleaner. Woolworths made admissions and cooperated in resolving the case, however, the Federal Court ordered a substantial penalty of $ 3.057 million given the seriousness of the conduct. The outcome comes at a time when the ACCC is encouraging all companies to pay close attention to quality assurance and be proactive in detecting and removing unsafe products from their shelves. In recent years, the ACCC has also focused on consumer issues affecting vulnerable and disadvantaged members of the community, in particular people who are newly arrived in Australia. We achieved an important outcome in this area drawing on various ACL remedies. In March, the Federal Court found that Clinica Internationale Pty Ltd (Clinica) and Mr Radovan Montague Laski, a director and the sole shareholder of Clinica, made false or misleading representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to a program allegedly offering permanent residency.4 Clinica offered migrants training and sponsored employment in the cleaning industry under a program which it claimed would lead to permanent

vi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Foreword

Australian residency. Approximately 90 migrants paid fees totalling more than $760,000 to participate in the program, with many paying in excess of $10,000 each. The Court ordered Clinica and Mr Laski to refund payments made by migrants and to pay penalties totalling $1.025 million ($700,000 and $325,000 respectively). The Court also disqualified Mr Laski from managing corporations for five years. The Full Federal Court is considering an appeal from Mr Laski and related entities on some of the orders made by the trial judge. There was also much interest in the so-called “Mind the Gap” judgment with the Federal Court dismissing the ACCC’s proceedings against Woolworths Ltd.5 In December 2014, Woolworths developed the “‘Mind the Gap”’ scheme to reduce a significant half-year gross profit shortfall, with category managers and buyers contacting many suppliers to ask for urgent payments ranging from $4,291 to $1.4 million. The Federal Court ruled that Woolworths’ requests for these payments were not unconscionable within the meaning of the ACL. Like the Flight Centre decision, the Federal Court’s ruling in ACCC v Valve Corp will also have lasting significance for the modern day marketplace. The judgment provides greater certainty where overseas-based online platforms supply digital goods to Australian consumers. In March 2016, the Court found that Valve, through its online game distribution platform Steam, and its Steam website, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to Australian consumers about their consumer guarantee rights under the ACL. The court’s decision reinforces that foreign-based businesses selling goods and/or services to Australian consumers can be subject to the ACL, including the consumer guarantee provisions. It is also the first time the Courts have applied the extended definition of “goods” in the ACL to include computer software. In December, the Federal Court imposed penalties of $3 million against Valve. Key changes to the law This edition of Miller’s also outlines some important changes to the Act. On 1 July 2016, a new country of origin food labelling system started under the ACL. The new system will require most foods produced, grown or made in Australia to display a label with the kangaroo in a triangle symbol, as well as a bar chart. ACL regulators are responsible for enforcing compliance with the new laws after a two-year transition. We also have new laws banning excessive payment surcharges. The ban essentially stops businesses from charging customers more than what it costs the business to process the payment. The ban has a staged introduction applying to large businesses from 1 September 2016 and to all other businesses from 1 September 2017. From 12 November 2016, the ACL extended to protect small businesses from unfair terms in standard form contracts. If the court finds a term unfair, that particular term will be void and treated as if it never existed. In 2017, the ACCC is moving from its education phase to an enforcement approach where we will be targeting unfair contract terms. Large and complex merger reviews In terms of merger assessments, 2016 was another busy year for the ACCC with many large and complex matters coming across our desk, including JB Hi-Fi Ltd’s proposed acquisition of the Good Guys Discount Warehouses; Iron Mountain Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Recall Holdings; and Metcash’s proposed acquisition of Home Timber & Hardware. Significantly, a number of proposals were abandoned after competition concerns were raised including a Brookfield-led consortium’s proposal to acquire Asciano Ltd. The ACCC subsequently approved a restructured joint proposal for Brookfield and Qube led consortia to acquire Asciano. In the year ahead, the ACCC will look closely at arguments put forward by merger parties where they say there will not be a substantial lessening of competition because one of the firms is failing. In conducting our informal merger assessments, we will be looking to strike a balance in making prompt decisions while also allowing sufficient time to gather evidence in preparation for litigation in contentious matters.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

vii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

The authorisation and notification functions in Pt VII of the Act require the ACCC to look at whether there is a net public benefit with the conduct for which authorisation is sought or has been notified. The application by a number of banks to collectively bargain and boycott Apple on Apple Pay is one of the important and complex authorisations considered by the ACCC in 2016. We are proposing to make a final decision in early 2017. Market studies feature prominently It is not wise to imply, as some do, that where there is no clear breach of the Act, the market must always be working well. We think market studies can, in appropriate cases, be an important safety valve enabling the credible concerns of stakeholders to be examined. Market studies can also lead to policy recommendations, enforcement investigations and help identify whether other tools may address market failures such as information asymmetry concerns. The ACCC completed a very resource intensive inquiry into the east coast gas market. The ACCC used powers available under Pt VIIA to gather information and cut through some of the opaqueness of the market, and the cloak of confidentiality that has left previous inquiries to some extent incomplete. We made a number of recommendations that the CoAG Energy Council and state and territory governments considered to alleviate gas market issues. We also increased our focus on the agriculture sector. The ACCC conducted a series of workshops with fruit and vegetable growers and wine producers across the country. We are close to completing a market study into the beef and cattle sector and, following a direction under s 95H(1) of the Act, we have started a formal inquiry into Australia’s dairy industry. The ACCC continues to shine a light on the factors driving petrol prices in regional areas through targeted market studies. This year we handed down reports on the petrol markets in Launceston and Armidale. Following a direction under s 95ZE of the Act, the ACCC also published quarterly petrol monitoring reports. In 2016, we launched an industry wide study of new car retailing which will examine important competition and consumer issues. This market study will examine practices relating to consumer guarantees, warranties and new cars; fuel consumption; post-sale service arrangements and access to repair and service information and data. We have also completed our annual report on the private health insurance industry as directed by a Senate order. Our report focused on how insurers notify their customers about reductions in their coverage and benefits. Finally, in 2016 we announced a major study into the rapidly changing communications industry. We recognise the communications sector is one that all Australians have an interest in, and one that facilitates economic growth. Importantly, the study will also allow the ACCC to consider a wide range of interrelated issues that go to the proper functioning of the market. Lines of inquiry in communications As part of our regulatory work under Pt XIC of the Act, the ACCC started a declaration inquiry to determine whether to declare a wholesale domestic mobile roaming service. The inquiry will look at whether the difference in geographic coverage provided by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone is having a negative effect on competition for mobile services, and whether declaration of the service would be in the long-term interests of consumers. In a separate inquiry, the ACCC proposed to continue to declare the wholesale asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) service for a further five years until February 2022. We will move to make a final decision in 2017. We also made a decision to declare a superfast broadband access service (SBAS), which should allow retailers to access certain non-NBN fixed line networks capable of supporting broadband services with a download rate of 25 megabits per second or more. Also in communications, the Federal Court is due to hand down a decision after Telstra sought judicial review of the ACCC’s access determination lowering prices for services provided over Telstra’s copper

viii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Foreword

network by 9.4 per cent. We also made access determinations lowering prices for the declared mobile terminating access service and domestic transmission capacity service. Following on from the SBAS declaration, we commenced consultation on an access determination for that service in conjunction with the related local bitstream access service. Shipping channel declared In June 2016, the Australian Competition Tribunal declared the shipping channel service operated Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd under Pt IIIA of the Act. Where an access seeker and provider cannot agree on the terms and conditions of access to a declared service, either party may request the ACCC to arbitrate. This occurred in November when Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd requested the ACCC to arbitrate an access dispute with the Port of Newcastle Operations. At the same time, the declaration of the shipping channel service is the subject of an application for judicial review by the Full Federal Court in which the ACCC was an intervenor. If that challenge is successful, the arbitration process will stop. Also under Pt IIIA, the ACCC undertook assessment of a replacement access undertaking for the Hunter Valley rail network. It is an honour to introduce Miller’s on behalf of the ACCC. As you can tell by the weight of this edition, there is always something new in competition and consumer law in Australia. We are looking forward to another big and fascinating year in 2017. 1 2 3 4

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha NSD1143/2016. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Ltd [2016] FCA 44. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Clinica Internationale Pty Ltd (In liq) (No 4) [2016] FCA 286. 5 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Ltd [2016] FCA 1472.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

ix

PREFACE Although 2016 promised to be a year of significant legislative change following the Government’s response to the Harper Review, by year-end (with one exception) only a discussion draft of the post-Harper legislation had been issued. The exception was introduction of a Bill in December to amend the controversial misuse of market power provision – s 46. That Bill, which is likely to re-enliven the controversy that raged over the Harper recommendations, is planned to come into effect mid-year assuming it passes the Parliament. Although the post-Harper legislation was not in final form by the cut-off date for this edition, the discussion draft and Bill will provide practitioners, academics and students with a window on what the law is likely to be. This edition includes annotations on each of those significant post-Harper changes. Turning to the Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”), the extent to which it has so quickly become a main-stream feature in consumer litigation in State and Territory courts is notable. The ACL featured, or was cited, in over 60 cases in those courts in 2016, with the NSW Court of Appeal and the NSW Supreme Court accounting for almost 70% of the cases. While space does not permit inclusion of all of those State and Territory decisions, a growing number do appear in this edition and more will appear in the online edition. Legislative change also occurred in the consumer area. First, a new Pt IVC was inserted in the Act to deal with excessive surcharges on credit and debit cards. The new provisions, in force from 1 September 2016, apply to retailers with gross revenue of >$25 million, assets of >$12.5 million or more than 50 employees. From 1 September 2017, the provisions will apply to all retailers. The second is the unfair contract terms law, amended in 2015 to extend to business-to-business standard form contracts, but only with effect from 12 November 2016. There was no abatement in court decisions considered for this edition. Two cases are of particular note. In December, the High Court handed down the decision in Flight Centre. The majority decided that the travel agency group was in competition with the airlines it represented. The full ramifications for principal-agent relationships, especially in the on-line environment, have not yet been assessed. The second was a landmark case – the first criminal prosecution under the cartel provisions. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha pleaded guilty to criminal cartel conduct in relation to the transportation of vehicles to Australia. The plea obviated an opportunity to discover how the cartel provisions might work in practice. As with previous editions, constraints on the size of the book necessitated removal of some older examples in earlier editions. Where cases have been removed that is noted. Unconstrained by size, the online version contains all cases removed from the current edition (and earlier editions). It is updated regularly during the year. I continue to be indebted to readers who bring to my attention cases and articles worth considering for inclusion, and also those who draw my attention to inevitable errors and omissions. I am particularly grateful for the work of the very professional editorial team at Thomson Reuters who, throughout the year, produce this work in each of its formats. This edition includes all amendments to the Act and Regulations up to 1 January 2017. RVM Sydney January 2017

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................... v Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... xi Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... xiii About this Publication .................................................................................................................................. xv Table of Cases .............................................................................................................................................. xxi COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 ...................................................................................... 3 Table of Provisions ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Amending Legislation .................................................................................................................... 40 Part I – Preliminary ...................................................................................................................................... 57 Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission .......................................................... 159 Part IIA – The National Competition Council .......................................................................................... 183 Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal ........................................................................................ 193 Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) ............................................................................. 203 Part IIIAB – Application of the finance law ............................................................................................. 219 Part IIIA – Access to services .................................................................................................................... 221 Part IV – Restrictive trade practices .......................................................................................................... 353 Part IVB – Industry codes .......................................................................................................................... 561 Part V – Carbon tax price reduction obligation ........................................................................................ 581 Part VI – Enforcement and remedies ......................................................................................................... 601 Part VIA – Proportionate liability for misleading and deceptive conduct ............................................... 757 Part VIB – Claims for damages or compensation for death or personal injury ...................................... 763 Part VII – Authorisations, notifications and clearances in respect of restrictive trade practices ............ 777 Part VIIA – Prices surveillance .................................................................................................................. 911 Part VIII – Resale price maintenance ........................................................................................................ 939 Part IX – Review by Tribunal of Determinations of Commission ........................................................... 953 Part X – International liner cargo shipping ............................................................................................... 979 Part XI – Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a Law of the Commonwealth ................... 1039 Part XIAA – Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a Law of the State or Territory ........... 1105 Part XIA – The Competition Code .......................................................................................................... 1109 Part XIB – The Telecommunications Industry: Anti-competitive conduct and record-keeping rules ... 1115 Part XIC – Telecommunications access regime ...................................................................................... 1185 Part XID – Search and seizure ................................................................................................................. 1295 Part XII – Miscellaneous .......................................................................................................................... 1311 Part XIII – Application and transitional provisions relating to the competition provisions .................. 1365 Schedule 1 – The Schedule Version of Part IV [Not Reproduced] ........................................................ 1369 Schedule 2 – The Australian Consumer Law ...................................................................................... 1371 Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1383 Chapter 2 – General protections .............................................................................................................. 1418 Part 2–1 – Misleading or deceptive conduct ........................................................................................... 1418 Part 2–2 – Unconscionable conduct ......................................................................................................... 1537 Part 2–3 – Unfair contract terms .............................................................................................................. 1568 Chapter 3 – Specific protections .............................................................................................................. 1580 Part 3–1 – Unfair practices ...................................................................................................................... 1580 Part 3–2 – Consumer transactions ............................................................................................................ 1634 Part 3–3 – Safety of consumer goods and product related services ....................................................... 1685 Part 3–4 – Information standards ............................................................................................................. 1713 Part 3–5 – Liability of manufacturers for goods with safety defects ..................................................... 1718 Chapter 4 – Offences ................................................................................................................................ 1731 Part 4–1 – Offences relating to unfair practices ...................................................................................... 1731

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 4–2 – Offences relating to consumer transactions ........................................................................... 1751 Part 4–3 – Offences relating to safety of consumer goods and product related services ...................... 1767 Part 4–4 – Offences relating to information standards ............................................................................ 1775 Part 4–5 – Offences relating to substantiation notices ............................................................................ 1778 Part 4–6 – Defences .................................................................................................................................. 1780 Part 4–7 – Miscellaneous ......................................................................................................................... 1786 Chapter 5 – Enforcement and remedies ................................................................................................... 1790 Part 5–1 – Enforcement ............................................................................................................................ 1790 Part 5–2 – Remedies ................................................................................................................................. 1794 Part 5–3 – Country of origin representations .......................................................................................... 1858 Part 5–4 – Remedies relating to guarantees ............................................................................................ 1865 Part 5–5 – Liability of suppliers and credit providers ............................................................................ 1881 Chapter 6 – Application and Transitional Provisions .............................................................................. 1888 Part 1 – Application and transitional provisions relating to the Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 ................................................................................................................ 1888 Part 1A – Application provision relating to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2015 .................................................................................................... 1889 COMPETITION AND CONSUMER REGULATIONS 2010 ........................................................... 1891 Table of Provisions ................................................................................................................................... 1891 Table of Amending Legislation ................................................................................................................ 1895 Part I – Preliminary .................................................................................................................................. 1900 Part 2 – General ........................................................................................................................................ 1902 Part 2A – Review by Tribunal of access determinations ........................................................................ 1935 Part 2B – Telecommunications access regime ......................................................................................... 1939 Part 3 – International liner cargo shipping .............................................................................................. 1942 Part 4 – Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing and other information ................................................ 1949 Part 5 – Authorisations, notifications and clearances in respect of restrictive trade practices – prescribed matters .............................................................................................................................................. 1951 Part 6 – Australian Consumer Law .......................................................................................................... 1955 Part 7 – Transitional matters – Australian Consumer Law ..................................................................... 1962 Schedule 1 – Forms – General [Not reproduced] ................................................................................... 1964 Schedule 1A – Matters for which no fee is payable ............................................................................... 1965 Schedule 1B – Fees payable to Commission or Tribunal for applications and notices ........................ 1966 Schedule 2 – Fees – registration of conference agreements ................................................................... 1968 Schedule 3 – Forms – registration of conference agreements [Not Reproduced] ................................. 1969 RELATED REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 1971 Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulation 2014 ...................................... 1973 Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Oilcode) Regulation 2006 ............................................ 2021 Trade Practices (Horticulture Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 ....................................................... 2075 Trade Practices (Industry Codes – Unit Pricing) Regulations 2009 ....................................................... 2097 RELATED MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................... 2107 Merger guidelines ..................................................................................................................................... 2109 Informal Merger review process guidelines ............................................................................................. 2163 Formal merger review process guidelines ............................................................................................... 2185 ACCC immunity and cooperation policy for cartel conduct .................................................................. 2243 Index .......................................................................................................................................................... 2257 Index of Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 235

xiv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION Legislation ................................................................................................................................... xv Currency ...................................................................................................................................... xv Legislative amendments in this edition .................................................................................. xvi Future Commencements ................................................................................................................................. xvi Proposed amendments .................................................................................................................................. xvii

Legislation — special features ............................................................................................... xviii Side notes ...................................................................................................................................................... xviii History notes .................................................................................................................................................. xviii Comparative notes for TPA/ACL ..................................................................................................................... xix Cross-references ............................................................................................................................................. xix Editor’s notes .................................................................................................................................................. xix

Paragraph numbering ................................................................................................................ xix Miller Online ................................................................................................................................ xx Legislation copyright ................................................................................................................. xx Enquiries ...................................................................................................................................... xx

LEGISLATION Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law, 39th edition contains the following Acts, regulations and related materials: • Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (except Sch 1) • Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (except Schs 1 and 3 forms) • Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014 • Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Oilcode) Regulation 2006 • Trade Practices (Horticulture Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 • Trade Practices (Industry Codes—Unit Pricing) Regulations 2009 • Merger Guidelines 2008 (21 November 2008 version) • Informal Merger Review Process Guidelines (September 2013 version) • Formal Merger Review Process Guidelines (30 June 2008 version) and • ACCC immunity and cooperation policy for cartel conduct (10 September 2014 version) Editor’s Note:

The Competition and Consumer (Industry Code—Port Terminal Access (Bulk Wheat)) Regulation 2014 and the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Regulation 2015 are not reproduced in this edition of the book. The material is available in the online version of this publication.

CURRENCY The Acts and regulations have been updated to include all available amendments to 1 January 2017. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS IN THIS EDITION Amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (Cth) and related regulations as set out below have been incorporated into this publication. Competition and Consumer Act 2010 • Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015 – Act 10 of 2015 • Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) (Consequential Provisions) Act 2015 – Act 126 of 2015 • Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2015 – Act 147 of 2015 • Statute Law Revision Act (No 1) 2016 – Act 4 of 2016 • Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Act 2016 – Act 9 of 2016 • Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 – Act 24 of 2016 • Territories Legislation Amendment Act 2016 – Act 33 of 2016 • Statute Update Act 2016 – Act 61 of 2016 Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 • Competition and Consumer Amendment (National Energy Laws) Regulation 2015 – SLI 106 of 2015 • Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No 1) Regulation 2016 – F2016L00156 of 2016 • Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No 2) Regulation 2016 – F2016L00705 of 2016 Trade Practices (Horticulture Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 • Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) (Consequential Amendments) Regulation 2016 – F2016L00170 of 2016 FUTURE COMMENCEMENTS Corporations and Other Legislation Amendment (Insolvency Law Reform) Regulation 2016 Uncommenced amendments made by the Corporations and Other Legislation Amendment (Insolvency Law Reform) Regulation 2016 (F2016L01926) to the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulation 2014 and the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Oilcode) Regulation 2006 have been included in the body of the text in the form of future history notes. These future history notes are preceded by a star (★). Example: Future history note under the substitution of paragraph (c) in item 4.2 of the Franchising Code of Conduct (contained in the Schedule to the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulation 2014): ★ [Item 4 future am F2016L01926 of 2016, s 4 and Sch 1 item 23, with effect from a date TBP, or if not sooner, 1 Mar 2017, by substituting ‘a Chapter 5 body corporate’ for ‘an externally-administered body corporate’ in para (c) in item 4.2. Item 4.2 will read: “4.2 Whether the franchisor, a franchisor director, an associate of the franchisor or a director of an associate of the franchisor, has been: (a) in the last 10 years—convicted of a serious offence, or an equivalent offence outside Australia; or (b) in the last 5 years—subject to final judgment in civil proceedings for a matter mentioned in paragraph 4.1(a); or (c) in the last 10 years—bankrupt, insolvent under administration or a Chapter 5 body corporate in Australia or elsewhere.”]

xvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

About this Publication

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Future Commencements Amending legislation

Number

140 of 2010 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Act 2010

Date of gazettal/ Date of commencement assent/registration 15 Dec 2010 Sch 1 items 57–59 commence immediately after a final functional separation undertaking comes into force under Pt 9 of Sch 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth) Future Commencements Amending legislation

Number

Corporations and Other F2016L01926 Legislation Amendment 2016 (Insolvency Law Reform) Regulation 2016

Date of gazettal/ Date of commencement assent/registration of 13 Dec 2016 Sch 1 items 19-23 commence at the same time as Sch 1 to the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 commences (to be proclaimed or 1 Mar 2017).

Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Oilcode) Regulation 2006 (Cth) Future Commencements Amending legislation

Number

Corporations and Other F2016L01926 Legislation Amendment 2016 (Insolvency Law Reform) Regulation 2016

Date of gazettal/ Date of commencement assent/registration of 13 Dec 2016 Sch 1 items 24-28 commence at the same time as Sch 1 to the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 commences (to be proclaimed or 1 Mar 2017).

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Competition and Consumer Act 2010 • Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2015 – 2nd reading speech Senate 12 Feb 2015; restored to Notice Paper 15 Sep 2016. Sch 1 items 1-15 commence 12 months after date of assent. • Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2016 [Exposure Draft]. Submissions on Schs 1-6 and 8-13 closed 28 Oct 2016. Sch 1, Sch 2 Pt 1, Schs 3 and 4, Sch 5 items 1-23, Schs 6 and 8, Sch 9 items 1-22, Sch 10 items 1-88, 90-114 and 116-142, Sch 11 item 1, Sch 12 items 1-4, Sch 13 items 1-13, 15-32 and 34-37 commence on proclamation or 6 months after date of assent. Sch 2 items 49 and 50 commence immediately after provs covered by table item 3 (to be proclaimed or 6 months after date of assent). Sch 10 item 89 commences

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xvii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

immediately after provs covered by table item 5 (to be proclaimed or 6 months after date of assent). Sch 10 item 115 commences immediately after provs covered by table item 11 (to be proclaimed or 6 months after date of assent). [Editor’s Note: Sch 7 of the Exposure Draft contained amendments dealing with the misuse of market power. Submissions on Sch 7 closed 30 Sep 2016. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 was introduced to Parliament on 1 Dec 2016 (information relating to this Bill is found in the paragraph after next).] • Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 – passed House of Reps 28 Nov 2016; 2nd reading speech Senate 29 Nov 2016. Report of Senate Economics Legislation Committee tabled 10 Oct 2016. Sch 1 commences day after date of assent. • Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 – 2nd reading speech House of Reps 1 Dec 2016. Referred to Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 Feb 2017. Schs 1 and 2 commence on a date to be proclaimed or 6 months after date of assent.

LEGISLATION – SPECIAL FEATURES SIDE NOTES Thomson Reuters authored subsection headings are inserted throughout the text of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). These “side notes” (displayed in bold type inside square brackets to the right of a subsection number) are designed to aid in the interpretation of the relevant subsections, where no subsection heading is contained within the actual text of the legislation. Example: Side note to s 45DA(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth): (1) [Prohibited conduct] In the circumstances specified in subsection (3), a person must not, in concert with a second person, engage in conduct: (a) that hinders or prevents: (i) a third person supplying goods or services to a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); or (ii) a third person acquiring goods or services from a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); and (b) that is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing a substantial lessening of competition in any market in which the fourth person supplies or acquires goods or services. HITSORY NOTES The history notes have been entered into an abbreviated form using the number and year of the amending Act or regulation and a descriptor (eg. “insrt”) to show the effect of the amending Act or regulation. The abbreviations used in the historical notes are as follows: • insrt – inserted • am – amended • subst – substituted • rep – repealed • exp – expired • reinsrt – reinserted • renum – renumbered • reloc – relocated • mod – modified Example: History note under s 151BC(2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth):

xviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

About this Publication

[Subs (2) am Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 item 164, with effect from 3 Dec 2012] This note indicates that subsection (2) was amended by Act 169 of 2012, Schedule 2 item 164. S 3 is a reference to the enacting provision. Details of the short title of the amending Act or regulation, assent/gazettal/registration and commencement dates and transitional provisions are located in the Table of Amending Legislation following the Table of Provisions. COMPARATIVE NOTES FOR TPA/ACL To assist interpretation of the legislative changes resulting from the introduction of the ACL, comparative notes about provisions in the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the ACL are set out below the relevant sections of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Example: Comparative note under repealed s 44JA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth): History of the TPA/ACL For current provision (post ACL reform) see s 44J(7). CROSS-REFERENCES Cross-references have been integrated into this publication to indicate where a particular regulation affects a section of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Example: Cross-reference under s 44AAG of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth): [Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 6AA prescribes orders about energy laws for s 44AAG(2)(e).] EDITOR’S NOTES Editor’s notes have been integrated into this publication to assist practitioners with identifying information relevant to the interpretation of a particular section or regulation, including: • transitional, application and savings provisions which pertain to amendments of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) following the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 2) 2010 (Cth), Act 103 of 2010, on 1 January 2011; and • gaps in numbering in a particular Act or regulation. Example: Editor’s note under s 45B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth): [Editor’s Note: Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 item 168 provides the amendment by Sch 2 item 162 applies in relation to covenants given on or after the commencement of this item. Sch 2 item 168 commenced on 3 Dec 2012.]

PARAGRAPH NUMBERING Annotations to legislative provisions and non-legislative material are distinguished from legislative provisions by two means: Legislative provisions are shaded and do not have paragraph numbers while annotations and other materials have paragraph numbers. The paragraph numbers consist of three parts: 1. An abbreviation to indicate the piece of legislation the annotation refers to; 2. Section number; and 3. Number of the annotation paragraph. For example, [CCA.45.20] refers to an annotation of s 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 has been allocated the abbreviation “CCA”. Please refer to the Index for a more detailed key to the paragraph numbering system. All references in the Table of Cases, Index and Index of Definitions are either to legislative provisions or to paragraph numbers.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xix

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

MILLER ONLINE Miller Online is also available. It has all the features of the book and in addition it has the following benefits to keep you up to date with developments in competition and consumer law: • Regular updates – The commentary is updated frequently and amendments to legislation are available soon after commencement. • Linking and integration – Miller Online works in conjunction with other Thomson Reuters Online services so that you can click on a case name and get access to Firstpoint litigation history and case summary and citation links which will take you directly to the full text of cases. • Extended coverage – Miller Online also includes content not available in the book. At present this includes a frequently updated pending legislation section featuring links to the full text of Bills and Second Reading Speeches.

LEGISLATION COPYRIGHT Copyright of Cth legislative material: © Commonwealth of Australia (2017). All Commonwealth legislative material is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Commonwealth of Australia copyright. For reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), permission should be sought in writing from the current Commonwealth Government agency with the relevant policy responsibility.

ENQUIRIES Enquiries concerning this publication may be addressed to:

The Product Manager, Miller’s 39th edition Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited Level 6 19 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009 Australia Or emailed to: [email protected]

xx

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES A A v Pelekanakis (1999) 91 FCR 70; 57 ALD 131; [1999] FCA 236 ............................. ACL.21.160, ACL.22.60 A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1047; (2007) 165 IR 94 ............................................................. CCA.45D.280, CCA.45DC.40, CCA.45DC.60 A W Tyree Transformers Pty Ltd, Re [1997] ATPR (Com) 50-247 .............................. CCA.90.840, CCA.90.900 ABC v Parish [1980] FCA 33; (1980) 43 FLR 129; 29 ALR 228; [1980] ATPR 40-154 .................. CCA.4G.20, CCA.44ZZ.20, CCA.45D.120 ABC Learning/Hutchison (ACCC Competition Assessment 11 October 2006) .................................. CCA.50.260 ABN AMRO Bank NV v Bathurst Regional Council [2014] FCAFC 65 ........................................ CCA.87CB.40 AC Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd, Re (1977) 16 ALR 255; [1977] ATPR 40-044 ............................... CCA.103.100 AC Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd (No 2), Re (1978) 18 ALR 129; [1978] ATPR 40-057 .................... CCA.90.140, CCA.90.480 ACCC v 1Cellnet LLC [2005] FCA 856 ............................................................................................... ACL.247.40 ACCC v 4WD Systems Pty Ltd (2003) 200 ALR 491; 59 IPR 435; [2003] FCA 850; [2003] ATPR (Digest) 46-239; [2004] ASAL 55-113 ....... ACL.18.1580, ACL.21.40, CCA.51ACB.100, CCICF.5.20 ACCC v 4WD Systems Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 850; (2003) 200 ALR 491; 59 IPR 435; [2003] ATPR (Digest) 46-239; [2004] ASAL 55-113 .......................................................... CCA.86C.60CCA.86C.160 ACCC v A Whistle & Co (1979) Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1447 ............................................................... ACL.29.420 ACCC v ABB Power Transmission Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 626 ..................................................... CCA.155AAA.20 ACCC v ABB Power Transmission Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 819; [2004] ATPR 42-011 ......................... CCA.76.520 ACCC v ABB Transmission & Distribution Ltd [2001] FCA 1190; (2001) 115 FCR 436 ................ CCA.86.340 ACCC v ABB Transmission & Distribution Ltd [2001] FCA 1343; [2001] ATPR 41-839 ................ CCA.86.340 ACCC v ABB Transmission & Distribution Ltd (No 2) (2002) 190 ALR 169; [2002] ATPR 41-872; [2002] FCA 559 .................. CCA.137H.20, CCA.137H.40, CCA.76.580, CCA.76.620, CCA.76.640, CCA.76.660, CCA.79.180, CCA.79.240, CCA.79.260, CCA.79.280, CCA.83.40, CCA.83.100, CCA.83.140, CCA.86.340 ACCC v ABB Transmission & Distribution Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 609; [2002] ATPR 41-873 ................................................................................................ CCA.137H.60, CCA.83.120, CCA.83.140 ACCC v ACCC v South East Melbourne Cleaning Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 257 ....................... CCA.76.720 ACCC v ACN 099 814 749 Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 403 .............. ACL.69.20, ACL.69.40, ACL.69.60, ACL.69.80, ACL.69.100 ACCC v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 1087 ........................................................ CCA.86C.120 ACCC v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 1441 ........................................................... CCA.86.700 ACCC v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) (“Advanced Medical”) [2015] FCA 368; [2015] ATPR 42-498 ............................................ ACL.21.260, ACL.21.340, ACL.23.200, ACL.24.140, ACL.239.40 ACCC v ACN 135 183 372 (in liq) (formerly Energy Watch Pty Ltd) [2012] FCA 749 ................ ACL.18.1500, ACL.29.440, ACL.34.80,ACL.224.260 ACCC v AGL Sales Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1030 ....................... ACL.74.20, ACL.75.20, ACL.75.40, ACL.246.20 ACCC v AGL South Aust Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1369 ........................................................................... ACL.29.440 ACCC v AGL South Aust Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 399 ............................................................................. ACL.239.40 ACCC v AMV Holding Ltd [2009] FCA 605 .............................................................. ACL.18.2020, CCA.86.220 ACCC v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1623 .......................................................................... CCA.86.140 ACCC v ASIC [2000] NSWSC 316 ...................................................................................................... CCA.76.480 ACCC v ATS All Trades and Services Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 647 ......................................................... ACL.20.340 ACCC v Abel Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 314 ........................... ACL.18.900, ACL.18.1260, ACL.18.2080 © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxi

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Adata (Vic) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 583 .................................................. ACL.69.100, CCA.86.260 ACCC v Adepto Publications Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 247; [2013] ATPR 42-434 ........... ACL.29.440, ACL.40.100, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085 ............................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.160 ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 ................................... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.200, CCA.5.120, CCA.44ZZRD.220, CCA.45.20, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.100, CCA.45.400, CCA.51.80, CCA.77.20 ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355; (2012) 207 FCR 448 ............................... CCA.45.100 ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1363 ................................................................... CCA.4E.280 ACCC v AirAsia Berhad Co [2012] FCA 1413 ............ ACL.48.140, ACL.224.200, CCA.45D.300, CCA.76.240 ACCC v Albert [2005] FCA 1311; (2005) 223 ALR 467; [2005] ATPR 42-085 ........ ACL.232.20, CCA.75B.80, CCA.80.80, CCA.80.220 ACCC v Alice Car & Truck Rentals Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-582 .................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.1040, CCA.86.340 ACCC v Alinta 2000 Ltd [2007] FCA 1362; [2007] ATPR 42-179 .................................................. CCA.87B.280 ACCC v Allans Music Group Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1552 ....................... ACL.18.860, ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480, CCA.79.160 ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 960 ........ ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.360, ACL.34.60, CCA.86C.80, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 17; (2009) 253 ALR 324; [2009] ATPR 42-274 .............................................................................................................. ACL.21.360, CCA.80.140 ACCC v Alvaton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 760 ............................ ACL.107.140, CCA.80.380, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [1999] FCA 672; (1999) 163 ALR 465; [1999] ATPR 41-692 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.77.100 ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749 .......................................................................................... CCA.45.80, CCA.45.720, CCA.86.540 ACCC v Ampol Petroleum (Vic) Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-469 .......................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.48.260 ACCC v Apollo Optical (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1456 .................................................................. CCA.80.400 ACCC v Apple Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 646 .............................................................................................. ACL.33.140 ACCC v April International Marketing Services Aust Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 17 ............. CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v April International Marketing Services Aust Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 735 ........... CCA.86.60, CCA.138.60 ACCC v April International Marketing Services Aust Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] FCA 704; (2010) 270 ALR 504 .................................................................................................. CCA.45.140, CCA.84.120 ACCC v April International Marketing Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 16 .............................. CCA.86.340 ACCC v Artorios Ink Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 1292 ................... ACL.40.80, ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140 ACCC v Ascot Four Pty Ltd (2008) 250 ALR 467; [2008] FCA 1295 ............................................... ACL.18.980 ACCC v Ascot Four Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 28; (2009) 253 ALR 313; [2009] ATPR 42-272 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.151.80 ACCC v Audi Aust Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1990; [2008] ASAL 55-183; [2007] ATPR 42-211 ........... ACL.18.900, ACL.18.1260, ACL.29.340, ACL.29.480, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Aust and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 ............................................ CCA.4E.220 ACCC v Aust and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 236 FCR 78; [2015] ATPR 42-508; (2015) 324 ALR 392; [2015] FCAFC 103 .......................................................................... CCA.4E.60 ACCC v Aust and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103 ................. CCA.4E.140, CCA.4E.280, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRD.40, CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Aust and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] FCA 1516 ..................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.60 ACCC v Austlink Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 552 .............................................................................. CCA.86.140 ACCC v Australian Abalone Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1834; [2007] ATPR 42-199 ........................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.640 ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 83; (2006) 152 FCR 33; 232 ALR 153; [2006] ATPR 42-124 ........................................................... CCA.44V.60, CCA.44ZP.80, CCA.44ZZA.60 ACCC v Australian Dreamtime Creations Pty Ltd (2009) 263 ALR 487; 84 IPR 326; [2009] FCA 1545 ........................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.1240

xxii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519 ......... CCA.2A.60, CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.120, CCA.2A.160, CCA.44ZZRD.180, CCA.44ZZRJ.60, CCA.45.80, CCA.84.120 ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Aust Branch Inc [2001] FCA 1471; (2001) 114 FCR 91; [2001] ATPR 41-844 ............................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.80.480, CCA.86.240, CCA.86.340 ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Aust Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945 .... CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.660 ACCC v Australian Power and Gas Co Ltd [2013] FCA 1358 ............ CCA.139B.40, ACL.18.2020, ACL.74.40 ACCC v Australian Purchasing & Tender Service Pty Ltd [1999] ATPR 41-684 ....... ACL.29.360, ACL.29.440, ACL.34.60 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 238; 145 ALR 36; [1997] ATPR 41-562 ..................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.48.220, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.340, CCA.76.400, CCA.76.640, CCA.76.1040, CCA.79.280 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [2003] ATPR 41-935 ............. CCA.4E.340, CCA.45.580, CCA.46.100, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.900 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215 ................................................................................................................................. CCA.46.700 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215 ...... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.46.420, CCA.47.140, CCA.47.240, CCA.47.600, CCA.48.220, CCA.76.940, CCA.84.120, CCA.84.180, CCA.96.180 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1294 .............................................. CCA.86.600 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] FCAFC 163 ........................................... CCA.86.600 ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 21; [2006] ATPR 42-101 .............. CCA.45.580 ACCC v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2004] FCA 517; [2004] ATPR 42-002 ............................................................. CCA.45D.280, CCA.163A.160 ACCC v Avitalb Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 222 ............................................ ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.540 ACCC v BAJV Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 666; [2013] ATPR 42-446 ............................... ACL.18.1260, ACL.18.2080 ACCC v BMW Aust Ltd [2003] FCA 727; [2003] ASAL (Digest) 55-109; [2003] ATPR 41-944 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.105.20 ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 581; [2005] ATPR 42-066 ............. CCA.2A.160, CCA.46.980, CCA.47.580 ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 128; (2006) 153 FCR 574; 22 ALR 627; [2006] ATPR 42-128 .............................................................................. CCA.46.980, CCA.47.580, CCA.51.40 ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 38; (2007) 232 CLR 1; 81 ALJR 1622; 237 ALR 512; [2007] ATPR 42-172 .............................. CCA.2B.180, CCA.46.980, CCA.47.580, CCA.51.40 ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 141; (2008) 170 FCR 16; 249 ALR 674 ............................................................................................... CCA.46.120, CCA.46.960, CCA.47.580 ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483 ... CCA.47.120, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.540, CCA.47.660 ACCC v Bio Enviro Plan Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1219; [2003] ATPR 41-963; [2004] ASAL 55-115 ............................................................................... ACL.18.1700, ACL.29.540, ACL.37.40, ACL.49.40 ACCC v Bio Enviro Plan Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 232 ............ ACL.18.1700, ACL.29.540, ACL.37.40, ACL.49.40 ACCC v Bio Enviro Plan Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 415; [2004] ATPR 41-998 ................ ACL.237.240, CCA.87.480 ACCC v Black & White Cabs Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1399 ................................................................... CCA.47.640 ACCC v Black on White Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 187; (2001) 110 FCR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-820 ...... ACL.18.1480, CCA.75B.80 ACCC v Black on White Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1605 ............................................................................ CCA.86.600 ACCC v Black on White Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 363; [2004] ATPR 41-997 ................. ACL.237.240, CCA.87.480 ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715 .... CCA.46.80, CCA.46.200, CCA.46.580, CCA.46.660 ACCC v Boral Ltd [2001] FCA 30; (2001) 106 FCR 328; [2001] ATPR 41-803 .............................. CCA.4E.340 ACCC v Boral Ltd [2004] FCA 1072; [2004] ATPR 42-018 ............................................................... CCA.86.420 ACCC v Boral Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1641; [2000] ATPR 41-738 ............................ CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxiii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC

Boyle [2015] FCA 1039 ....................................................................................................... CCA.155.580 Breast Check Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 190 .......................................................... ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.440 Bridgestone Corp [2010] FCA 584; (2010) 186 FCR 214 .................... CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.86.220 British Airways plc [2008] FCA 1977; [2008] ATPR 42-265 ...................... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Bruhn [2012] FCA 959; [2012] ATPR 42-414 ....................................................................... ACL.33.100 ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468; [1999] FCA 954; [1999] ATPR 41-732 .... CCA.44ZZRD.80, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRJ.160, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.740, ACL.18.380 ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 9) [2000] FCA 23; [2000] ATPR 41-756 ................ CCA.45.740, CCA.86.240 ACCC v CFMEU [2008] FCA 678 ..................................................................................................... CCA.155.540 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1376; [2000] ATPR 41-778 ............................. ACL.20.200 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1893; [2001] ATPR 41-802 ............................. CCA.80.180 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 757; (2001) 185 ALR 555; [2001] ATPR 41-826 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.80.180 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51; 77 ALJR 926; 197 ALR 153; [2003] HCA 18; [2003] ATPR 41-916 ..... ACL.20.60, ACL.20.100, ACL.20.120, ACL.20.200, ACL.20.400, ACL.21.60 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (2000) 96 FCR 491; 169 ALR 324; [2000] FCA 2; [2000] ATPR 41-755 ............................................... ACL.20.40, ACL.20.60, ACL.20.80, ACL.20.100 ACCC v CI & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511 ................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.80, ACL.33.100, ACL.33.120 ACCC v CLA Trading Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 377; [2016] ATPR 42-517 .... ACL.2.160, ACL.23.20, ACL.23.200, ACL.24.40, ACL.24.140 ACCC v Cabcharge Aust Ltd [2010] FCA 1261 ............... CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.80, CCA.46.880, CCA.46.920, CCA.46.940, CCA.46.980, CCA.76.300 ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 516; (2004) 61 IPR 270; [2004] ATPR 42-001 ............................. ACL.18.960, ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100, CCA.86C.60, CCA.80.260 ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 32; (2009) 174 FCR 547; 254 ALR 198; [2009] ATPR 42-285 ........................................................ CCA.155AAA.60, CCA.157B.20, CCA.86.660 ACCC v Capalaba Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1226; [2004] ATPR 41-976; [2004] ASAL 55-120 ............ ACL.21.340, ACL.50.80 ACCC v Cargolux Airlines International SA [2009] FCA 342; [2009] ATPR 42-282 ............. CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.440 ACCC v Carrerabenz Diamond Industries Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1103; [2008] ASAL 55-191 ............ ACL.151.80 ACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 1) [2015] FCA 607 ..................................................................... CCA.86.200 ACCC v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1392 ................................................. CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Cement Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165 ...................... CCA.45.220, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.700, CCA.46.320, CCA.46.360, CCA.46.420, CCA.46.800, CCA.46.980 ACCC v Cement Aust Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 148 ..................................... CCA.45.700, CCA.46.980, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Cement Aust Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 453 ................ CCA.45.700, CCA.76.20, CCA.76.380, CCA.76.400, CCA.76.560, CCA.76.600 ACCC v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Ltd (2009) 83 ALJR 691; 255 ALR 1; [2009] HCA 19 ............................................................................................................... ACL.19.20, ACL.19.40, ACL.19.100 ACCC v Chaste Corp Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 180; (2003) 127 FCR 418; 44 ACSR 668; [2003] ATPR 41-921; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-166 ................................................................... CCA.86.620 ACCC v Chaste Corp Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 398 ................................................................................... CCA.76.260 ACCC v Chaste Corp Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] FCA 1212 .............................................. CCA.48.300, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Chats House Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 250; 142 ALR 177; 22 ACSR 539 ................................................................................ ACL.20.300, ACL.237.100, CCA.86.360, CCA.87.160 ACCC v Chen (2003) 132 FCR 309; 201 ALR 40; [2003] FCA 897; [2003] ATPR 41-948; [2004] ASAL 55-110 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1520

xxiv

v v v v

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC v Chen [2003] FCA 897; (2003) 132 FCR 309; 201 ALR 40; [2003] ATPR 41-948; [2004] ASAL 55-110 .............. ACL.29.440, ACL.29.460, CCA.5.120, CCA.6.60, CCA.86.220, CCA.86.400 ACCC v Chopra [2015] FCA 539 ........................................................................................................... ACL.36.80 ACCC v Chrisco Hampers Aust Ltd [2015] ATPR 42-513; [2015] FCA 1204 .............. ACL.23.200, ACL.24.40, ACL.24.60, ACL.24.120, ACL.24.140, ACL.97.40, ACL.97.60 ACCC v Chubb Security Aust Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1750; [2004] ATPR 42-041 ........... ACL.36.60, ACL.214.20 ACCC v Clarion Marketing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1441 ...................................................................... ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Clinica Internationale Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 62 ............. ACL.21.280, ACL.21.340, ACL.29.440, ACL.31.40, ACL.224.220, ACL.227.20, ACL.227.40, ACL.239.20, CCA.137H.80 ACCC v Coles Group Ltd [2014] FCA 363; [2014] ATPR 42-467 ........................... CCA.87B.20, CCA.87B.280 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd (2014) 317 ALR 73; [2014] FCA 634; [2014] ATPR 42-475 ......................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.20, ACL.29.80, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.60, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405 .............. ACL.21.340, ACL.224.200, CCA.76.600 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330; [2015] ATPR 42-494 ... ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100, ACL.224.220 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1022; [2014] ATPR 42-487 .......... ACL.232.140 ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 619 ......................................................................... CCA.48.300 ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 528 .............................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.660 ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 676 ............................................................. CCA.45.660 ACCC v Commercial & General Publications Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 900; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-222 ....................................................................... ACL.36.20, ACL.36.60, ACL.40.40, ACL.43.40 ACCC v Commercial & General Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1349; [2003] ASAL 55-090; [2002] ATPR 41-905 ....................................................... ACL.36.60, ACL.43.40, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Commonwealth Bank of Aust Ltd (2003) 133 FCR 149; [2003] FCA 1129 .................... ACL.18.1540, CCA.80.300 ACCC v Commonwealth Bank of Aust Ltd [2003] FCA 1397; [2004] ATPR 41-975; [2004] ASAL 55-117 ............................................................................................................ ACL.18.1540, CCA.80.300 ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730; [2007] ATPR 42-140 ............................................................................................... CCA.45D.280, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 678 ............. CCA.45E.100, CCA.45.80 ACCC v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2006] FCA 695; [2006] ATPR 42-116 .......... CCA.80.620 ACCC v Cotton On Kids Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1428; [2012] ATPR 42-427 ............... ACL.107.140, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Craftmatic Aust Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 972 .............................................................................. CCA.86.140 ACCC v Cromford Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-618 ....................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v DM Faulkner Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1666 ............................................................................... CCA.45.660 ACCC v Dally M Publishing and Research Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1220; [2007] ATPR 42-176 ... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Danoz Direct Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 881; (2003) 60 IPR 296; [2003] ATPR (Digest) 46-241; [2004] ASAL 55-114 ............. ACL.18.1620, CCA.86C.80, CCA.80.180, CCA.80.300, CCA.80.580, CCA.138.80 ACCC v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427; (2006) 236 ALR 665; [2007] ATPR 42-138 .................................................................................................... ACL.50.80, CCA.86.260, CCA.86C.60 ACCC v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] FCAFC 146; (2007) 161 FCR 513; 244 ALR 300 ......................... ACL.224.260, ACL.232.20, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.340, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.460, CCA.76.480, CCA.76.720, CCA.80.40, CCA.80.180, CCA.80.220, CCA.86.160 ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 791 ....... ACL.18.260, ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.440, CCA.76.160 ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 114 ......................... ACL.18.260, ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.440 ACCC v Davies [2015] FCA 1017 ............................................................................. CCA.155.560, CCA.155.580 ACCC v Davis [2003] FCA 1227 ................................................................. ACL.21.340, ACL.50.20, ACL.50.80 ACCC v Dell Computer Pty Ltd (2002) 126 FCR 170; [2002] FCAFC 434 ...................................... ACL.18.900 ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 847; [2002] ATPR 41-878; [2002] ASAL 55-082 ......... ACL.2.140, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.1780, ACL.29.220, ACL.48.20, ACL.48.80, ACL.247.20, CCA.4.420

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 434; (2002) 126 FCR 170; [2003] ATPR 41-910; [2003] ASAL 55-096 ........................................................................................................... ACL.29.480 ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 434; (2002) 126 FCR 434 ...................................... CCA.4.420 ACCC v Dermalogica Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 152; (2005) 215 ALR 482; [2005] ATPR 42-046 ........ CCA.48.300, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.460, CCA.80.80 ACCC v Derodi Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 365 ...................................................................... ACL.29.340, ACL.33.120 ACCC v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1175; [1999] ATPR 41-716 .................................... ACL.107.140 ACCC v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 299; [2001] ATPR 41-811; [2001] ASAL (Digest) 55-058 ................................................................................................................................ ACL.107.140 ACCC v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 372 ........................................................................... ACL.107.140 ACCC v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682; [2009] ATPR 42-290; [2009] ASAL 55-196 ............ ACL.18.20, ACL.18.1900, ACL.21.360, ACL.29.20, ACL.29.80 ACCC v DuluxGroup (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1158 ............................................ ACL.18.1420, ACL.18.1640 ACCC v DuluxGroup (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1286 .......................................................... ACL.29.440 ACCC v Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 429 ................................................................................ CCA.80.620 ACCC v EDirect Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 65 ...... ACL.18.2020, ACL.36.20, ACL.36.60, CCA.80.400, CCA.86.220 ACCC v EDirect Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 976; (2012) 206 FCR 160; [2012] ATPR 42-215 ......... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.29.440, ACL.36.60, ACL.224.200, ACL.224.260, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.480, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Econovite Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 964; [2003] ATPR 41-959 ........................... ACL.18.960, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.180 ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 303; [2004] ATPR 41-994 ..................... CCA.87.200 ACCC v Emerald Ocean Distributors Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1703; [2006] ATPR 42-096; [2006] ASAL 55-153 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1620 ACCC v Emirates [2012] FCA 1108 ............................................................................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Energy Watch Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 425 .............. ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1500, ACL.29.440, ACL.34.80 ACCC v EnergyAust Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 336; [2014] ATPR 42-469 ...... ACL.74.40, ACL.75.40, CCA.76.220, CCA.76.440 ACCC v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd [2003] FCA 1225 ..................................................... ACL.21.340, ACL.50.80 ACCC v Eternal Beauty Products Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1124 ........................................ CCA.48.300, CCA.76.960 ACCC v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [2005] FCA 1900; [2006] ATPR 42-098 ..................................... CCA.46.940 ACCC v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 350 ........................................ ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.50.60 ACCC v Exclusive Media Publishing Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 228; [2014] ATPR 42-463 ....................... ACL.50.80 ACCC v FChem (Aust) Ltd [2008] FCA 344 ..................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.1040 ACCC v FFE Building Services Ltd [2003] FCA 1542; [2003] ATPR 41-969 .................................. CCA.45.640 ACCC v FFE Building Services Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1181; [2003] ATPR 41-967 ............................ CCA.157.80 ACCC v FFE Building Services Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 132; [2003] ATPR 41-938 ......................... CCA.77.100 ACCC v Ferndale Recyclers Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1597 ...................................................................... CCA.45.660 ACCC v Fila Sport Oceania Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 376; [2004] ATPR 41-983; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-192 ............ CCA.4E.240, CCA.47.600, CCA.76.440, CCA.76.480, CCA.76.520, CCA.79.340 ACCC v Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1393 .................. ACL.54.140, CCA.131A.40 ACCC v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) [2013] ATPR 42-458; (2013) 307 ALR 209; [2013] FCA 1313 ................................................................................................................................ CCA.4.520, CCA.4C.40 ACCC v Flight Centre Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 292 ............................................................................ CCA.76.200 ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49 ................... CCA.4E.140, CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRD.240, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.380 ACCC v Foamlite (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-615 ....................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.76.420 ACCC v Francis [2004] FCA 487; (2004) 142 FCR 1; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-250 ..................... ACL.232.20, CCA.86C.60, CCA.163A.160, CCA.80.220, CCA.80.380, CCA.80.400, CCA.80.420 ACCC v GIA Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1298; [2003] ASAL 55-093 ............ ACL.29.500, CCA.76.480, CCA.79.340, CCA.155.580 ACCC v GM Holden Ltd [2008] FCA 1428 ....................................................................................... ACL.18.1260

xxvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC v GO Drew Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1246 ................ ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.29.440, ACL.33.100, ACL.232.120 ACCC v Gary Peer & Assocs Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 404; (2005) 142 FCR 506; 65 IPR 1 ............. ACL.18.1860, ACL.29.220, ACL.29.480, ACL.30.60 ACCC v George Weston Foods Ltd [2000] FCA 690; [2000] ATPR 41-763 ..... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.600, CCA.76.1040 ACCC v George Weston Foods Ltd [2004] FCA 1093; (2004) 210 ALR 486; [2004] ATPR 42-015 ................................................................................................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.86C.60 ACCC v Get Qualified Aust Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 976 ................................................ CCA.137F.20, CCA.80.360 ACCC v Giraffe World Aust Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 512; 156 ALR 723; [1998] ATPR 41-648 ...................................................... ACL.237.100, CCA.76.80, CCA.80.360, CCA.87.160, CCA.87.200 ACCC v Giraffe World Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 95 FCR 302; 166 ALR 74; [1999] FCA 1161; [1999] ASAL 55-040; [1999] ATPR 41-718 .... ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.440, ACL.49.40, ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140, CCA.28.140, CCA.76.120 ACCC v Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 180; (1998) 40 IPR 619; [1998] ASAL 55-008; [1998] ATPR 41-632 ............. ACL.7.20, ACL.9.20, ACL.18.960, ACL.29.100, ACL.29.440, ACL.138.120, CCA.86A.40 ACCC v Global One Mobile Entertainment Ltd [2011] FCA 393; [2011] ATPR 42-358 ............... ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.480, ACL.224.20 ACCC v Globex Systems Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 550; [2005] ATPR 42-069 ........................................ CCA.80.620 ACCC v Golden Sphere International Inc (1988) 83 FCR 424; [1988] ATPR 41-638 .................... ACL.237.100, CCA.87.160 ACCC v Golden West Network Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 792 ................................................................... CCA.86.140 ACCC v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1441 ........................................................ CCA.80.620, CCA.86.640 ACCC v Goldy Motors Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1885; [2001] ATPR 41-801; [2001] ASAL 55-053 ............................ ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1260, ACL.18.1920, ACL.29.540, CCA.86.220, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Google Inc [2012] FCAFC 49 .............................................................................................. ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Gordon Superstore Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 452; [2014] ATPR 42-474 .................................... ACL.29.540 ACCC v Gourmet Goody’s Family Restaurant Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1216 .................. ACL.48.120, ACL.224.20, CCA.134A.40 ACCC v Grant [2000] FCA 1564 ............................................................................................................ ACL.37.40 ACCC v Grove & Edgar Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1956; [2008] ATPR 42-269 ........ CCA.51ACB.100, CCA.86.220, CCA.86.260 ACCC v Gullyside Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1727; [2006] ATPR 42-097 ........................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v HP Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1317 ........................................................ ACL.29.540, ACL.54.140 ACCC v HP Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 297 ...................................................... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100 ACCC v Halkalia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 534 ............................................................................................ ACL.37.40 ACCC v Halkalia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 535 ................................... ACL.37.40, ACL.248.20, ACL.248.40 ACCC v Harbin Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1792 ..................................... CCA.86C.100, CCA.86C.120, CCA.86C.160 ACCC v Harrison [2016] FCA 1543 ............................................................. ACL.21.380, ACL.50.60, ACL.50.80 ACCC v Hartwich Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 273 ......................................................................................... ACL.214.20 ACCC v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd [2011] FCA 1407; [2011] ATPR 42-384 ...... ACL.18.860, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.540, CCA.76.1040 ACCC v Health Partners Inc (1997) 151 ALR 662; [1998] ATPR 41-604 ......................................... CCA.47.580 ACCC v Hewlett-Packard Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 653 ............... ACL.PT3-2.20, ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.540, ACL.246.20 ACCC v High Adventure Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 247; [2006] ATPR 42-091 .......... ACL.224.260, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.480 ACCC v Hillside (Aust New Media) Pty Ltd (t/as Bet 365) [2015] FCA 1007 ........ ACL.18.1520, ACL.29.360, CCA.76.40 ACCC v Hillside (Aust New Media) Pty Ltd (t/as Bet 365) [2016] FCA 698 ........... ACL.18.1520, ACL.29.360 ACCC v Hobie Cat Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 402; [2008] ATPR 42-225 ........ CCA.86C.60, CCA.48.360

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Homeopathy Plus! Aust Pty Ltd (2014) 146 ALD 278; [2014] FCA 1412 ...... ACL.2.180, ACL.18.40, ACL.18.800, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.340, CCA.6.60 ACCC v Homeopathy Plus! Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1090 .......................... ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.340 ACCC v Hughes [2001] FCA 38; [2001] ATPR 41-807 ............................................... CCA.86D.60, CCA.80.620 ACCC v Hughes [2002] FCA 270; [2002] ATPR 41-863; [2002] ASAL 55-078 .......... ACL.18.840, CCA.5.120, CCA.6.60 ACCC v Humax Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 706; [2005] ATPR 42-072 ...................................................... CCA.86C.60 ACCC v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-538 ....................................................................... ACL.107.140 ACCC v Hymix Industries Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-465 .................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.420 ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 819; [1999] ATPR 41-704 .................................................. ACL.4.200 ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] FCA 313; [1999] ATPR 41-688 ................................... CCA.86.380 ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221 ...................... ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1980, CCA.47.80, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.160, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.320, CCA.47.540, CCA.47.660 ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] FCAFC 17; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-165 ................ ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1980, CCA.47.540, CCA.47.660 ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1777; (2006) 157 FCR 162; [2006] ATPR (Digest) 46-271 ........................................ CCA.45E.100, CCA.45EA.20, CCA.45.80 ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 144; [2007] ATPR 42-151 ........................................................................................................ CCA.45E.100, CCA.45EA.20 ACCC v Info4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949; (2002) 121 FCR 24 ............................................... CCA.80.620 ACCC v Info4PC.com Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1510 ................................................................................ CCA.86.700 ACCC v Info4PC.com Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1534 ......................................................... CCA.80.400, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Internic Technology Pty Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 225; [1998] ATPR 41-646 .... ACL.237.100, CCA.86A.40, CCA.87.160 ACCC v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1716; [2002] ATPR 41-851 ................................... CCA.76.1020 ACCC v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 497; [2001] ATPR 41-816 ..................................... CCA.76.1020 ACCC v J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd (1997) 77 FCR 217; 148 ALR 601; [1997] ATPR 41-592 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.77.100, CCA.84.160 ACCC v J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-570 .............. ACL.224.60, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.100 ACCC v J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [1998] ATPR (Digest) 46-183 ............................ CCA.76.1040 ACCC v Japan Airlines International Co Ltd [2011] FCA 365 .................................................. CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1263 ..................................................... ACL.18.2080, ACL.29.480 ACCC v Jewellery Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 848 .............................. ACL.18.980, ACL.18.1180, ACL.29.480 ACCC v Jewellery Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 14; [2013] ATPR 42-440 ....... ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480, CCA.76.220 ACCC v Jones [2010] FCA 205 .......................................................................................................... ACL.18.1820 ACCC v Jones (No 5) [2011] FCA 49 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.200 ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79; [2007] ATPR 42-146 ............... CCA.5.120, CCA.48.60, CCA.48.100, CCA.48.300 ACCC v Jutsen (No 3) [2011] FCA 1352 ........................................................................... ACL.44.100, CCA.6.60 ACCC v Jutsen (No 4) [2012] FCA 503 ............................................................................................... ACL.44.100 ACCC v Kaye [2004] FCA 1363 ................. ACL.18.60, ACL.18.140, ACL.18.220, ACL.18.1860, ACL.247.20, CCA.76.140 ACCC v Keshow [2005] FCA 558 ........................................................................................................ ACL.21.340 ACCC v Kingisland Meatworks and Cellars Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 859 ............................................... ACL.29.500 ACCC v Kingisland Meatworks and Cellars Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 48 ................................................. ACL.29.500 ACCC v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 5; [2008] ATPR 42-212 ................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.300, CCA.86.20, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd [2011] FCA 1360; [2011] ATPR 42-382 ..... CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.400 ACCC v Koyo Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1051 .................................................... CCA.86C.80, CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Kritharas [2000] FCA 1442; (2000) 105 FCR 444; 178 ALR 363 .............. ACL.237.240, CCA.87.480 ACCC v Kyloe Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1522; [2007] ATPR 42-194 ......................... CCA.51ACB.100, CCICF.5.40

xxviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC v Launceston Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1315 ............... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.540, ACL.54.140 ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1678; (2004) 141 FCR 183; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-260 .................................................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.80 ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162 ....................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.100, CCA.45.120, CCA.45.200, CCA.76.860, CCA.76.900, CCA.155.460, CCA.155.540 ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 254; (2005) 215 ALR 281; [2005] ATPR 42-051 ............................................. CCA.44ZZRF.120, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.320, ACL.224.260 ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 3) [2005] FCA 265; (2005) 215 ALR 301; [2005] ATPR 42-052 ............................................................................................................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1121; [2000] ATPR 41-742 ............. ACL.20.80, ACL.21.80, ACL.21.160, ACL.21.360, ACL.22.60 ACCC v Levi (No 3) [2008] FCA 1586 ............................................................................................... CCA.86.640 ACCC v Lifestyle Photographers Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1538 ............... ACL.21.380, ACL.239.40, CCA.137H.80 ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 919 ..................... CCA.47.220, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.320, CCA.47.660 ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 524 .......................................................................... CCA.86.340 ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1799 ........................................................................ CCA.45.660 ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 826; [2006] ATPR 42-123 ............... CCA.4E.140, CCA.45.660 ACCC v Lovelock Luke Pty Ltd (1997) 79 FCR 63; [1997] ATPR 41-594 ....................................... ACL.29.260 ACCC v Luv-a-Duck Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1136; [2013] ATPR 42-455 .................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90; [2013] ATPR 42-447 ................ ACL.20.60, ACL.20.220, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.280, ACL.21.340, ACL.22.20, ACL.PT3-2.DIV2.20, ACL.PT3-2.DIV2.40, ACL.74.20 ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 903; [2015] ATPR 42-510 ............................ ACL.21.340 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926 ............................................................. ACL.PT3-2.DIV2.40, ACL.21.340 ACCC v Lyoness Aust Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1129 ................... ACL.44.40, ACL.44.120, ACL.49.20, ACL.49.40 ACCC v MHG Plastic Industries Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 788; [1999] ATPR 41-712 .......................... ACL.107.100, ACL.107.140 ACCC v MNB Variety Imports Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 81; [1998] ATPR 41-617 ....... ACL.107.140, CCA.76.1080 ACCC v MSY Technology Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 56; (2012) 201 FCR 378; [2012] ATPR 42-391 .......................................................................................................................... ACL.29.540, CCA.86.220 ACCC v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 382; [2011] ATPR 42-353; (2011) 279 ALR 609 .................................................................. ACL.29.540, ACL.224.20, CCA.76.680, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Malaysia Airline System Berhad (No 2) [2012] FCA 767 ........................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Mandurvit Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 464; [2014] ATPR 42-471 ............................ ACL.29.540, CCA.76.220 ACCC v Maritime Union of Aust [2001] FCA 1549; (2001) 114 FCR 472; 187 ALR 487; 50 AILR 4-521; [2002] ATPR 41-849 ........................... ACL.50.40, ACL.50.60, ACL.50.80, CCA.45DB.100 ACCC v Maritime Union of Aust [2001] FCA 1807; [2002] ATPR 41-857 ................. ACL.50.80, CCA.86C.80, CCA.45DB.100 ACCC v Marksun Aust Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 695 .................................. ACL.29.440, ACL.29.500, ACL.224.200 ACCC v Martinair Holland NV [2009] FCA 340 ........................................................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Mayo International Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 808; (1998) 85 FCR 327; [1998] ATPR 41-653 ........................................................ CCA.76.80, CCA.76.100, CCA.96.160, CCA.96.200, CCA.96.360 ACCC v McCaskey [2000] FCA 1037; (2000) 104 FCR 8 ............................................... ACL.50.60, ACL.50.80 ACCC v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1425; [2004] ATPR 42-031 ....................... CCA.44ZZRF.120, CCA.44ZZRJ.160, CCA.76.320, CCA.76.360 ACCC v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 353; [2004] ATPR 41-996 ............. CCA.157.20, CCA.157.40 ACCC v McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-628 .................................................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967 ............... CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.100, CCA.50.120, CCA.50.380, CCA.50.480

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151; (2011) 198 FCR 297; [2011] ATPR 42-380 ....... CCA.4E.200, CCA.4E.220, CCA.50.120, CCA.50.340, CCA.50.380, CCA.50.480, CCA.50.720, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.560 ACCC v Metricon Homes Qld Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 797 ................................................................... ACL.18.1860 ACCC v Michigan Group Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1439 ... ACL.224.100, ACL.224.120, CCA.76.140, CCA.87.200 ACCC v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 693; (2004) 207 ALR 329; [2004] ATPR 42-008 .................................. CCA.86C.120, CCA.87B.180, CCA.163A.160, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Mitsubishi Electric Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1413 ................. CCA.48.100, CCA.48.320, CCA.76.200 ACCC v Mobil Oil Aust Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-568 .............................................................................. CCA.45.120 ACCC v Monza Imports Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1455; [2001] ATPR 41-843; [2002] ASAL 55-076 ..................... CCA.86C.60, CCA.87B.160, CCA.137H.40, CCA.137H.80, CCA.80.400, CCA.83.100, CCA.83.140 ACCC v Moonah Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1314 .................... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.540, ACL.54.140 ACCC v Multimedia International Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 439 ... ACL.21.280, ACL.21.340, ACL.29.440, ACL.33.140, ACL.224.200, ACL.224.220, CCA.45D.300, CCA.76.240 ACCC v Murray (No 2) [2003] FCA 47; [2003] ATPR 41-927 .......................................................... CCA.79.180 ACCC v NSK Aust Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 453 .............................................................................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-515 .......... CCA.86C.80, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.420 ACCC v Narnia Investments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 395; [2009] ATPR 42-279 ................................. CCA.155.580 ACCC v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) 36 IPR 75; [1996] ATPR 41-519 ............... ACL.2.140, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.860, ACL.29.220, ACL.29.480, ACL.29.540, ACL.32.40, ACL.32.60, CCA.4.420 ACCC v Navman Aust Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2061; [2007] ATPR 42-208 ........................................... CCA.48.320 ACCC v Neighbourhood Energy Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1357; [2012] ATPR 42-426 ......... ACL.74.20, ACL.75.40 ACCC v Netti Atom Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1945; [2007] ATPR 42-204 ........................ CCA.48.100, CCA.48.320 ACCC v Neville [2007] FCA 1583; [2007] ATPR 42-195 ................................................................. CCA.155.580 ACCC v Nissan Motor Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-660; [1999] ASAL 55-015 .................. ACL.18.680, ACL.18.880, ACL.29.340, ACL.29.480, ACL.214.20, ACL.224.60, CCA.76.80, CCA.79.420 ACCC v Nonchalant Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] FCA 605; [2013] ATPR 42-442 ............. ACL.18.860, ACL.18.900, ACL.18.1260, ACL.18.2080 ACCC v Nordic Lust Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-504 ........................................................................... ACL.107.140 ACCC v Nudie Foods Aust Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 943; [2008] ATPR 42-245 .................................... ACL.18.1560 ACCC v Nuera Health Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 1756 .................................................................... CCA.80.600 ACCC v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1516; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-244; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-19 .................................................................................. ACL.18.1860, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 58; [2004] ATPR 41-981 ........... ACL.18.1860, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 174; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-255 ............ ACL.18.1860 ACCC v Office Link (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-598 .......................................... ACL.232.140, CCA.80.220 ACCC v On Clinic Aust Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 635; [1996] ATPR 41-517 .............. ACL.18.1820, ACL.247.20 ACCC v Oobi Baby Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1488 .................................................................................... CCA.48.240 ACCC v Optell Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 49; [1998] ATPR 41-640 ........ ACL.18.1180, ACL.29.360, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.460, ACL.29.520, ACL.34.60, ACL.40.100, ACL.43.40 ACCC v Original Mama’s Pizza & Ribs Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 370; [2008] ATPR 42-236 ................. ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1580, ACL.29.540, ACL.278.20 ACCC v Original Mama’s Pizza & Ribs Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 370; [2009] ATPR 42-236 ............. CCA.131A.60 ACCC v Ozsale Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1049 ......................................................................................... ACL.107.160 ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 ............... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRD.140 ACCC v PRK Corp Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 403; [2008] ATPR 42-226 .................................................. CCA.86.140 ACCC v PRK Corp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 715; [2009] ATPR 42-295 .............................. CCA.4J.20, CCA.45.560 ACCC v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2010] FCA 551; (2010) 269 ALR 98 ................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 ..................... CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.51.60, CCA.51.80, CCA.77.20, CCA.82.180

xxx

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC

v v v v

Pacific Dunlop Ltd [2001] FCA 740; [2001] ATPR 41-823 ................................................. CCA.138.80 Panasonic Aust Pty Ltd (2010) 269 ALR 622; [2010] FCA 856 ........................................ ACL.18.1420 Pauls Ltd [1999] FCA 1750; [2000] ATPR 41-747 ............................................................... CCA.138.80 Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911 ............................... CCA.4F.40, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.44ZZRD.120, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.220, CCA.45.240, CCA.86.540 ACCC v Pepe’s Ducks Ltd [2013] FCA 570; [2013] ATPR 42-441 .......................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, CCA.86C.160 ACCC v Pfizer Aust Pty Ltd [2015] ATPR 42-514; (2015) 323 ALR 429; [2015] FCA 113 ........... CCA.4E.240, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.980, CCA.47.580, CCA.51.180 ACCC v Phoenix Institute of Aust Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1246 ............................................................. CCA.76.480 ACCC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-457 ........................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.420 ACCC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (unreported, FCA, Drummond J, QG 143 of 1992, 15 December 1995) ........................................................................................................................... CCA.77.100 ACCC v Pioneer International Ltd (unreported, Fed Ct, 20 December 1996) .............. CCA.50.580, CCA.50.720 ACCC v Pirovic Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1028; [2014] ATPR 42-483 ................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Powerballwin.com.au Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 378 ..................................................................... CCA.86.260 ACCC v Pratt (No 2) [2008] FCA 1833 ............................................................................................. CCA.155.460 ACCC v Pratt (No 3) [2009] FCA 407; (2009) 175 FCR 558; [2009] ATPR 42-287 ...................... CCA.155.460 ACCC v Prouds Jewellers Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 199 ................................................. ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 2) [2012] FCA 44 ........................................ CCA.76.860 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 4) [2012] FCA 1323; 298 ALR 251 ........... CCA.86.140 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 5) [2013] FCA 294 ............................. CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 6) [2013] FCA 1002 .................................... CCA.86.140 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 7) [2014] FCA 5 ..................................... CCA.155AA.20 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL [2011] FCA 938; (2011) 283 ALR 137; [2011] ATPR 42-366 ............................................................................ CCA.76.820, CCA.76.860, CCA.76.900 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 4) [2012] FCA 1323; (2012) 298 ALR 251; [2012] ATPR 42-423 .............................................................................................. CCA.5.80, CCA.76.860 ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (No 12) [2016] FCA 822; [1982] ATPR 42-525 ................. CCA.84.180 ACCC v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1062 .............................................................. ACL.18.1620 ACCC v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 407; [2002] ATPR 41-868 ........................... ACL.18.1620 ACCC v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd (No 3) (2002) 196 ALR 576; [2002] FCA 1487; [2002] ATPR 41-913 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1620 ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266 ......... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRF.120, CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.76.320 ACCC v RL Adams Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1016 .................................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.33.100, ACL.232.140 ACCC v Radio Rentals Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 292; [2005] FCA 1133; [2005] ATPR 42-077 ........... ACL.20.400, ACL.21.340, CCA.84.180 ACCC v Rana [2008] FCA 374; [2008] ATPR 42-223 ...................................................................... CCA.155.580 ACCC v Rana [2008] FCA 435 ........................................................................................................... CCA.155.580 ACCC v Ranu Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1777 .................................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Real Estate Institute of WA Inc [1999] FCA 1387; (1999) 95 FCR 114; [1999] ATPR 41-719 ................................................................ ACL.247.20, CCA.86C.120, CCA.86D.40, CCA.80.80 ACCC v Real Estate Institute of WA Inc [1999] FCA 18; (1999) 161 ALR 79; [1999] ATPR 41-673 ................... ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.86C.60, CCA.80.220, CCA.80.380, CCA.80.400, CCA.80.580, CCA.86.220, CCA.86.240, CCA.86.340 ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1408 ......................... ACL.18.1620, ACL.33.140 ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 7) [2016] FCA 424 ................................................. ACL.224.200 ACCC v Reebok Aust Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 83 .............................................................. ACL.29.440, ACL.239.40 ACCC v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1135 ....... ACL.248.20, ACL.248.40, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.160, CCA.44ZZRJ.80 ACCC v Roberson [2008] FCA 1735 ................................................................................................. CCA.87B.280

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxi

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Robinson [2011] FCA 17 ........................................................................................................ ACL.194.60 ACCC v Roche Vitamins Aust Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 150; [2001] ATPR 41-809 ...................... CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.76.420 ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [1999] FCA 1847; (1999) 96 FCR 141; 169 ALR 201; [2000] ATPR 41-739 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.157.40 ACCC v Rural Press Ltd (2000) 96 FCR 389; 169 ALR 573; [2000] FCA 66; [2000] ATPR 41-753 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.25.20 ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 1065; (2001) ATPR 41-833 ... CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.120, CCA.76.600, CCA.76.620, CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.260 ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 116; [2001] ATPR 41-804 ...... ACL.224.140, CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.340, CCA.45.100, CCA.46.780 ACCC v Rural Press Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 66; (2000) 96 FCR 389; 169 ALR 573; [2000] ATPR 41-753 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.360 ACCC v SIP Aust Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 336; [2003] ATPR 41-937; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-177 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.76.640 ACCC v SIP Aust Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 858; [1999] ATPR 41-702 .................... CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.76.380, CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.380, CCA.80.400, CCA.86.340 ACCC v SIP Aust Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1258 ....................................................................................... CCA.86.340 ACCC v SIP Aust Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 824; [2002] ATPR 41-877 ........ CCA.45.440, CCA.47.140, CCA.76.60, CCA.76.100, CCA.96.200 ACCC v SIP Aust Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 336; [2003] ATPR 41-937; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-177 ............................. ACL.224.260, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.400, CCA.76.480, CCA.76.720, CCA.79.340 ACCC v SMS Global Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 855; [2011] ATPR 42-364 ....... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.60, ACL.18.80, ACL.18.80, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.80, CCA.4.540, CCA.80.180 ACCC v Safe Breast Imaging Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 238 .................................................................... ACL.18.1620 ACCC v Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 211 .......................................................... ACL.18.1660 ACCC v Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2015] FCA 1469 ................... ACL.18.1660, ACL.224.260, ACL.248.40 ACCC v Salecomp Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1316 ............... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.540, ACL.54.140 ACCC v Sampson [2011] FCA 1165 ................................................................................................... ACL.18.1840 ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1725; [2000] ATPR 41-791 ................ ACL.20.40, ACL.20.120, ACL.20.400 ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 117 FCR 301; 189 ALR 76; [2002] FCA 62; [2002] ATPR 41-858 ................................................................................................... ACL.20.100, ACL.20.400 ACCC v Scoopon Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 820 ......................................................................................... CCA.76.440 ACCC v Seal-A-Fridge Pty Ltd (2010) 268 ALR 321; [2010] FCA 525; [2010] ATPR 42-316; [2010] ASAL 55-208 ........................................................ ACL.21.360, CCA.4.500, CCA.51ACB.100 ACCC v SensaSlim Aust Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 5) [2014] FCA 340; (2014) 98 ACSR 347 ............. ACL.18.1580, ACL.18.1620, ACL.37.40, CCA.76.80 ACCC v SensaSlim Aust Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 7) [2016] FCA 484 ..... ACL.224.20, ACL.224.240, ACL.224.260 ACCC v Sensis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1571 ......................................................................................... ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Shell Co of Aust Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 386; [1997] ATPR 41-552 ......................................... CCA.87.200 ACCC v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 375; [2003] ATPR 41-942 ......................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1640, ACL.29.480, ACL.48.80, CCA.87B.80, CCA.87B.240, CCA.80.180, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 3; (2003) 52 ATR 1; [2003] ATPR 41-908 ........ ACL.18.680, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1640, ACL.29.480, ACL.48.80, ACL.247.40, CCA.87B.20, CCA.87B.160, CCA.87B.240, CCA.87B.280 ACCC v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 253; 178 ALR 304; [2000] FCA 1365; [2000] ATPR 41-790 .......................................................................................... ACL.21.360 ACCC v Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd [2012] FCA 1395 ............................ CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1177 ............. ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.360, ACL.34.60 ACCC v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1200 ...................... ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.360, ACL.34.60, ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140

xxxii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC

v v v v v v v

Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 761 ..................................................................... CCA.76.300 Skins Compression Garments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 710 ............................... ACL.18.1980, CCA.48.360 Skippy Aust Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1343 .................................................................................. ACL.194.60 Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 541 ............................. ACL.29.340, ACL.33.80, ACL.33.120 Société Air France [2009] FCA 341; [2009] ATPR 42-283 .................. CCA.44ZZRJ.120, CCA.76.440 Sontax Aust (1988) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1202 .................................................................... ACL.107.140 South East Melbourne Cleaning Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 25 .................... ACL.37.60, ACL.214.20, ACL.224.200, ACL.224.280, CCA.51ACB.100, CCA.76.700, CCICF.SCH1.11.20 ACCC v South East Melbourne Cleaning Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2015] FCA 257 ........................ ACL.224.260, CCA.76.280 ACCC v Spreets Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 382 ....................... ACL.29.480, ACL.224.220, CCA.76.280, CCA.80.380 ACCC v Star Promotions Club Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 139; [2010] ATPR 42-309 ................................ ACL.29.480 ACCC v Startel Communication Co Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 352; [2014] ATPR 42-465 .... ACL.76.40, ACL.79.40, ACL.86.60 ACCC v StoresOnline International Inc [2007] FCA 1597; [2007] ATPR 42-196 ............................ CCA.87B.20, CCA.87B.240, CCA.87B.260, CCA.87B.280, CCA.5.120 ACCC v StoresOnline International Inc (No 2) [2010] FCA 418 ........................................................ ACL.29.480 ACCC v Sundaze Aust Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1642; [2000] ATPR 41-736 ........................................... CCA.48.220 ACCC v TEAC Aust Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1859; [2007] ATPR 42-201 .............................................. CCA.48.320 ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 .......... ACL.18.2040, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRD.160, CCA.44ZZRD.200, CCA.44ZZRJ.160, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.400, CCA.76.160 ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1216 ................................................ CCA.44ZZRJ.160 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1254; [2011] ATPR 42-383 ................... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.480, ACL.29.540, ACL.48.100 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 629; [2012] ATPR 42-402 ..................... ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640; 88 ALJR 176; [2013] HCA 54 ....................... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.100, ACL.18.320, ACL.18.440, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.840, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.2020 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54; (2013) 250 CLR 640; 88 ALJR 176 ..................... ACL.18.100, ACL.29.20, ACL.29.480, ACL.236.40, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.420, CCA.76.600 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 629 ....................... ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.480, ACL.29.540, CCA.76.280 ACCC v Target Aust Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1326; [2001] ATPR 41-840; [2002] ASAL (Digest) 55-072 ........... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.1920, ACL.29.480, ACL.247.20, CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.380 ACCC v Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association Ltd [2003] FCA 788; [2003] ATPR 41-954 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.83.140 ACCC v Taxsmart Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 487; [2014] ATPR 42-473 .............. ACL.18.1580, ACL.18.1840 ACCC v Telstra Corp Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-540 ................................................................................. ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Telstra Corp Ltd (2004) 208 ALR 459; [2004] FCA 987; [2004] ATPR 42-017 .................. ACL.18.20, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1020, ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Telstra Corp Ltd [2007] FCA 2058; [2007] ATPR 42-207; [2008] ASAL 55-182 ........... ACL.18.2020, ACL.247.20 ACCC v Telstra Corp Ltd [2010] FCA 790; (2010) 188 FCR 238 ..................................................... CCA.76.280 ACCC v Telwater Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 263; [2009] ATPR 42-276 ..................................................... CCA.48.360 ACCC v Teracomm Ltd [2009] FCA 903 ........................................................................................... ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Terania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1074 .......................................................................................... CCA.86.320 ACCC v Terania Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 732 .......................................................................................... ACL.18.1920 ACCC v Thai Airways International Public Co Ltd [2012] FCA 1434 ...................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.120 ACCC v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-462 .................................. CCA.4E.340, CCA.80.660 ACCC v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCA 504 ......................... CCA.45D.280 [2016] FCAFC 97 ................................................................................................................................ CCA.45D.280 ACCC v The Vales Wine Co Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-528 ................................................................. ACL.29.340

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxiii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1489 ................................................................. CCA.46.880, CCA.46.920 ACCC v Top Snack Foods Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 752; [1999] ATPR 41-708 ............. ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1580, ACL.236.160 ACCC v Trading Post Aust Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1298 .................................................. CCA.157.60, CCA.157.80 ACCC v Trading Post Aust Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 498; 283 ALR 210; [2011] ATPR 42-370; [2011] FCA 1086 ................................................................ ACL.18.840, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2020 ACCC v Trevor Davis Investments Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 952; [2001] ATPR 41-828 ................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140 ACCC v Tubemakers of Aust Ltd [1999] FCA 1787; [2000] ATPR 41-745 ....... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.420 ACCC v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 19 ....... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 665; [2013] ATPR 42-448 ............ ACL.18.1560, ACL.19.100, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.60, ACL.33.80, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 5) [2013] FCA 1109; [2013] ATPR 42-450 .......... ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100 ACCC v Tyco Aust Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1799; [2000] ATPR 41-740 ........................ CCA.76.620, CCA.155.580 ACCC v Tyco Aust Pty Ltd [2000] ATPR 41-772 ................................................................................ CCA.76.420 ACCC v Tyco Aust Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 401; [2000] ATPR 41-760 .................................................. CCA.76.440 ACCC v Unilever Aust Ltd (1997) 40 IPR 354; [1998] ATPR 41-607 ............................................... ACL.29.260 ACCC v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800; (2001) 115 FCR 442; 201 ALR 502; [2002] ATPR 41-855 ................................................................... CCA.4E.260, CCA.47.220, CCA.86.480 ACCC v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 192; (2002) 201 ALR 618; [2002] ATPR 41-862 ....................................................... CCA.76.220, CCA.76.600,CCA.76.680, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Universal Sports Challenge Ltd [2002] FCA 1276 ..................... ACL.4.160, ACL.4.180, ACL.224.120 ACCC v Vales Wine Co Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-528 ........................... CCA.76.480, CCA.79.340, CCA.86.600 ACCC v Vales Wine Co Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 854 ............................................................................. ACL.224.260 ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 ................... ACL.2.120, ACL.18.840, ACL.18.1400, ACL.54.140, ACL.67.40, ACL.67.60, CCA.4C.40, CCA.4.500, CCA.5.20, CCA.5.60, CCA.5.180, CCA.131.20, CCA.138.60 ACCC v Valve Corp (No 6) [2016] FCA 1348 .................................................................................... CCA.86.120 ACCC v Vanderfield Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1535 ...................................... ACL.232.20, CCA.45.640, CCA.80.220 ACCC v Vassallo [2009] FCA 954 ........................................................................................................ CCA.86.220 ACCC v Virgin Mobile Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1548; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-164 ...................... ACL.18.2020, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.180, CCA.86C.160, CCA.80.380, CCA.80.400, CCA.86.180, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020 ............................................................................... CCA.47.540, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 136; [2006] ATPR 42-102 .......................... CCA.157.20 ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617; (2007) 244 ALR 673; [2007] ATPR 42-185 ................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.45.140, CCA.45.640 ACCC v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1640 ...................................................................................... CCA.76.60 ACCC v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1075; (2001) 112 FCR 37; [2001] ATPR 41-835 ............. CCA.45.440 ACCC v Visy Paper Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 1471; (2004) 212 ALR 564; [2004] ATPR 42-032 ............................................................................................................................................. CCA.86C.120 ACCC v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1299; [2005] ATPR 42-084 ............ CCA.48.240, CCA.76.440 ACCC v White Top Taxis Ltd [2009] FCA 88; (2009) 253 ALR 449; [2009] ATPR 42-273 .......... CCA.4D.200, CCA.45.560 ACCC v Wilson Parking 1992 Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1580 ................................................................. ACL.18.1660 ACCC v Wizard Mortgage Corp Ltd [2002] FCA 1317; [2002] ATPR 41-903 ......... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1540, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.480, ACL.247.20, CCA.86C.100, CCA.86C.160, CCA.80.560 ACCC v Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 530; (2003) 198 ALR 417; [2003] ATPR 41-941 .... ACL.21.140, ACL.29.140, CCA.87B.40, CCA.87B.60, CCA.87B.280, CCA.45.580, CCA.80.440, CCA.86.340 ACCC v Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 128; [2004] ATPR 41-988 ......................... CCA.45.580, CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.380 ACCC v Woolworths Ltd [2014] FCA 364; [2014] ATPR 42-466 ................................................... CCA.87B.280 ACCC v Woolworths Ltd [2016] FCA 1472 ..................................................................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340

xxxiv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC v Woolworths Ltd [2016] FCA 44 .............................................. ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100, ACL.131.100 ACCC v Woolworths Ltd (No 1) [2002] FCA 1001; [2002] ATPR 41-889 .............. ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1920 ACCC v Woolworths Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1046; [2002] ATPR 41-890 .............. ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1920 ACCC v Worldplay Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1138; (2004) 210 ALR 562; [2004] ATPR 42-020 .......................................... ACL.44.20, ACL.44.40, ACL.44.60, ACL.44.100, ACL.45.40, CCA.5.120 ACCC v Yazaki Corp [2014] FCA 1316 ................................................................ CCA.76.900, CCA.155AAA.60 ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 ......................... CCA.4D.80, CCA.4.320, CCA.5.60, CCA.5.80, CCA.44ZZRC.20, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.140, CCA.76.160, CCA.84.120 ACCC v Yellow Page Marketing BV [2010] FCA 226 ............................. CCA.86.60, CCA.86.400, CCA.138.60 ACCC v Yellow Page Marketing BV (No 2) [2011] FCA 352 ...................................... ACL.239.40, CCA.86.220 ACCC v Z-Tek Computer Pty Ltd (1997) 78 FCR 197; 148 ALR 339; [1997] ATPR 41-580 ......... ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.160, CCA.80.80, CCA.80.220 ACCC v Zanok Technologies Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1124 ........................ ACL.18.1460, ACL.20.340, ACL.31.40 ACCC v Zen Telecom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1226 ................................................................. CCA.86C.140 ACI Aust Ltd v Glamour Glaze Pty Ltd (1988) 11 IPR 269; [1988] ATPR 40-868 ........................ ACL.18.1640, ACL.18.2320, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.460 ACI Operations Pty Ltd, Re [1991] ATPR (Com) 50-108 ..................... CCA.89.80, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.1180, CCA.93.80 ACMA v Mobilegate Ltd (No 4) [2009] FCA 1225; (2009) 180 FCR 467; 261 ALR 326 ............... CCA.76.360 ACT v Munday [2000] FCA 653; (2000) 99 FCR 72; [2000] ATPR 41-771 ...................................... CCA.4M.20 ADC Centres Pty Ltd v Kilstream Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 549; [1979] ATPR 40-119 ................... CCA.45B.80, CCA.45B.120, CCA.47.180, CCA.47.620 AE Consulting Pty Ltd v Online Valuations Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1300 ..................................... CCA.138.160 AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 .................... CCA.4E.180, CCA.50.120, CCA.50.140, CCA.50.220, CCA.50.320, CCA.50.360, CCA.50.380, CCA.50.480, CCA.50.720, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.560 AGL Cooper Basin Natural Gas Supply Arrangements, Re [1997] ATPR 41-593 ..... CCA.91B.40, CCA.91B.60, CCA.91B.80, CCA.91B.120, CCA.103.120, CCA.152AL.20 ALDI Stores v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 563 .................................................... CCA.86.120 AMIEU v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; 60 ALJR 608; 66 ALR 577; [1986] ATPR 40-715 .................................................................................................. CCA.86.640, CCA.86.700 ANL Container Line Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Aust [1999] FCA 1882; [2000] ATPR 41-769 ................................................................................................................ CCA.45DB.100, CCA.45DC.60 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Harvey [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-132 ............................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1300 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Karam (2005) 64 NSWLR 149; 1 BFRA 353; [2005] NSWCA 344; [2006] ATPR 42-089; [2006] ASAL 55-150 ............................................................................ ACL.20.300 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Turnbull & Partners Ltd (1991) 106 ALR 115 ....................................... CCA.138.80 APC Prosthetics Pty Ltd, Re (CB00140) ......................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100 APIR Systems Ltd v Donald Financial Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 45 ................................ ACL.18.1960 APRA Ltd, Re (A91367-A91375; 6 June 2014) ................................................................................. CCA.90.1080 APS Satellite Pty Ltd v Ipstar Aust Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1898 .......... ACL.21.380, ACL.54.40, ACL.54.100, ACL.54.140, ACL.55.40, ACL.55.140, ACL.274.40 ASIC v Accounts Control Management Services Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1164 ................... ACL.50.20, ACL.50.40, ACL.50.60, ACL.50.80 ASIC v Adler [2002] NSWSC 483 ........................................................................................................ ACL.248.20 ASIC v Bank of Queensland Ltd (2011) 211 FCR 412; [2011] FCA 1361 ............... ACL.278.40, CCA.131A.60 ASIC v Camelot Derivatives Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 414 ............................................................ ACL.18.100 ASIC v Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCA 926 ....................................................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340 ASIC v Channic Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] FCA 1174 .......................................................... ACL.21.340, ACL.22.40 ASIC v Citrofresh International Ltd (No 3) [2010] FCA 292; (2010) 268 ALR 303 ...................... ACL.224.280, CCA.76.700 ASIC v Donovan (1998) 28 ACSR 583 ................................................................................................ ACL.248.20

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

ASIC v Forem-Freeway Enterprises Pty Ltd (1999) 30 ACSR 339; [1999] FCA 179 .................... ACL.224.280, ACL.248.20, CCA.76.700 ASIC v GE Capital Finance Aust [2014] FCA 701 ...................................................... ACL.18.1540, ACL.247.40 ASIC v Ingleby [2013] VSCA 49; (2013) 275 FLR 171 ................................................. CCA.76.20, CCA.76.260 ASIC v Kobelt [2016] FCA 1327 ...................................................................................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340 ASIC v Lindberg [2009] VSCA 234; (2009) 261 ALR 207; 74 ACSR 360 ..................................... CCA.155.520 ASIC v Matthews [1999] FCA 803; (1999) 32 ACSR 404 .................................................................. CCA.80.620 ASIC v Narain (2008) 169 FLR 211; [2008] FCAFC 120 ..................... ACL.18.480, ACL.45.60, CCA.131A.20 ASIC v National Exchange Pty Ltd (2005) 148 FCR 132; 56 ACSR 131; 23 ACLC 1,989; [2005] FCAFC 226 .................................... ACL.18.1960, ACL.20.60, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.21.360 ASIC v Parkes [2001] NSWSC 377 ...................................................................................................... ACL.248.20 ASIC v Pegasus Leveraged Options Group Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 310 ........................................... ACL.248.20 ASIC v Preston [2005] FCA 1805 ................................................................................. ACL.18.1700, ACL.21.360 ASIC v Roussi [1999] FCA 618 ............................................................................................................ ACL.248.20 ASX, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-267 ................................................................................................. CCA.90.1300 ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Aust Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 ....... ACL.2.120, CCA.4D.80, CCA.4D.160, CCA.4F.40, CCA.4F.80, CCA.45D.180, CCA.163A.40, CCA.4.340, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.280, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.720, CCA.46.700, CCA.47.380, CCA.50.380, CCA.151AJ.100 ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 27 FCR 492; 100 ALR 125; [1991] ATPR 41-109 ........................................... ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180, CCA.45.720, CCA.46.420 ASX Settlement and Transfer Corp Pty Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-221 .................................. CCA.90.1300 AV Jennings Ltd v First Provincial Building Society Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-494 ................................. CCA.47.540 Aaron’s Reefs Ltd v Twiss [1896] AC 273 ........................................................................................... ACL.236.40 Abbot Point Coal Export Terminal Producers, Re (A91275; 16 February 2012) ................................ CCA.90.940 Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Sydney Catchment Authority (No 3) [2006] NSWCA 282; (2006) 67 NSWLR 341 ............................................................................................ ACL.236.40, ACL.236.380 Abram v Bank of New Zealand [1996] ATPR 41-470 ........................................................................ ACL.18.1300 Abundant Earth Pty Ltd v R & C Products Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 233; 59 ALR 211; 4 IPR 387; [1985] ATPR 40-532 ................................................................................................................. ACL.18.920 Accor Aust & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 .... ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2340 Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Aust Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 470; 114 ALR 355; 27 IPR 133; [1993] ATPR 41-269 .............. ACL.4.120, ACL.18.40, ACL.18.580, CCA.4.160 Ackers v Austcorp International Ltd [2009] FCA 432 ...... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.60, CCA.76.40, CCA.84.120 Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Aust v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285 ........ CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.160, CCA.4A.40, CCA.4.180, CCA.47.100, CCA.50.440 Adams v Anthony Bryant & Co Pty Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-784; [1987] ASC 55-578 ........................... ACL.34.60 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433; [1991] 1 All ER 929; [1990] 2 WLR 657 ..................... CCA.5.60 Adams v ETA Foods Ltd (1987) 19 FCR 93; 78 ALR 611; [1987] ATPR 40-831 ....... ACL.207.20, ACL.208.80 Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; 100 ALR 479; 38 IR 394; 33 AILR 105; [1991] ATPR 41-084 ........................................................... CCA.4.500, CCA.45.760, CCA.51.160 Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1991) 31 FCR 242; 103 ALR 319; 38 IR 427; [1991] ATPR 41-141 ................................................................................................................. CCA.45.760 Adamson v West Perth Football Club (1979) 39 FLR 199; 27 ALR 475; [1979] ATPR 40-134 ....................................................................................................... CCA.4.140, CCA.4.500, CCA.45.760 Adelaide Brighton Ltd, Re [1999] ACompT 1 ...................................................................................... CCA.50.520 Adelaide Brighton Ltd, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-272 .................................................................... CCA.90.1100 Adelaide Brighton Ltd, Re [1999] ATPR 41-690 ............................................................. CCR.18.20, CCA.101.80 Adelaide Petroleum NL v Poseidon Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-901 ........................................ ACL.4.200, ACL.18.400 Adelaide Wool Brokers’ Assn, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-044 ........................................................ CCA.90.1280 Adisan Pty Ltd v Irwin [2015] NSWCA 217 ................................................................ ACL.18.1540, ACL.243.60

xxxvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Adoko v Freeserve.Com.Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 869 ............................................................................ ACL.23.180 Adour Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth Bank of Aust [1991] ATPR 41-147; [1991] ASC 56-107 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.18.600 Advanced Hair Studio Pty Ltd v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 1; 77 ALR 615; 10 IPR 97; [1987] ATPR 40-816 ......................................................................................... ACL.19.40, CCA.6.120 Advertiser Newspapers Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-071 ............................................................ CCA.90.1120 Advocate Newspaper Pty Ltd, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-089 ......................................................... CCA.90.1120 Aerospatiale Societe Nationale Industrielle v Aerospatiale Helicopters Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 37; 65 ALR 477; 6 IPR 219; [1988] ATPR 40-700 .............................................................. ACL.18.2320 AgStewardship Aust Ltd, Re (A91382; 29 January 2014) ................................................................... CCA.90.880 Agaiby (Khalaf) v Darlington Commodities Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-535; [1985] ASC 55-387 ............ ACL.18.400 Agsafe Ltd, Re [2002] ATPR (Com) 50-290 ......................................................................................... CCA.90.660 Agsafe Ltd, Re (variation approved 3 October 2002) .......................................................................... CCA.91A.80 Ah Toy J Pty Ltd v Thiess Toyota Pty Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 271; [1980] ATPR 40-155 ................... CCA.4E.240, CCA.45.260 Ahern v The Queen [1988] HCA 39; (1988) 165 CLR 87 .................................................................. CCA.45.100 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564; 66 ALJR 271; 59 A Crim R 255; 106 ALR 11 .................................................................... CCA.163A.160, CCA.86.220 Air International Pty Ltd v Chief Executive of Customs (2002) 121 FCR 149 ...................................... ACL.3.60 Air New Zealand Ltd and Air Canada, Re (A91097/8; 27 January 2009) ........................................ CCA.90.1400 Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418; 71 ALJR 156; 141 ALR 374; [1996] HCA 39 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.67.40 Akron Securities Ltd v Iliffe (1997) 41 NSWLR 353; 138 FLR 166; 143 ALR 457; [1997] ATPR 41-560 ................................................................ ACL.243.40, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180, CCA.87.280 Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219 .............. ACL.64a.20, ACL.267.20, CCA.139A.20, CCA.139A.40 Alaska Airlines Inc v United Airlines Inc [1991] 2 Trade Cases 69,624; 948 F2d 536 (1991) .... CCA.PTIIIA.40 Albrecht v Herald Co 390 US 145 (1968) .............................................................................................. CCA.48.60 Alcoa of Aust Ltd v Email Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, WA, Heenan J, 5 December 1995) ................ ACL.236.160 Alderton v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 435; [1993] ATPR 41-230; [1993] ASC 56-219 .................................................................................................................. ACL.21.340, CCA.84.80 Alievski v Cross Country Realty Victoria Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 316 ..................................................... ACL.20.20 Aliotta v Broadmeadows Bus Service Pty Ltd (1988) 65 LGRA 362; [1988] ATPR 40-873 ........... ACL.18.1860 Allianz Aust Insurance Ltd v Haddad [2015] NSWCA 186 ......................................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1540 Allianz Insurance Aust Ltd, Re (2004) A30217 .................................................................................... CCA.90.980 Alstom Power Ltd v Eraring Energy [2004] FCA 706; [2004] ATPR 42-009 .................................... CCA.86.300 Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 22 FCR 527; 92 ALR 601 .......... ACL.236.400, CCA.82.240 Amoco Aust Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288; 1 ALR 385; [1973] ATPR 40-001 ................................................................................. CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 Anabelle Bits Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1089 ............................................................ CCA.84.120 Anderson v Scrutton [1934] SASR 10 ................................................................................................... ACL.29.240 Anema Ecore Pty Ltd v Aromas Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 904 ................................................................ ACL.236.240 Angas Securities Ltd v Valcorp Aust Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 190 .......................................................... ACL.18.1840 Angas Securities Ltd v Valcorp Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 248 ............................................. ACL.18.1840 Angelatos v National Aust Bank [1994] ATPR 41-333 .................................................. ACL.243.80, CCA.87.320 Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd, Re (A1241; 2 December 2010) ............. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.940 Anglo American Services (UK) Ltd, Re (A91447; 3 December 2014) ............................................. CCA.90.1220 Anheuser-Busch, Inc v Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182; [2002] FCA 390 ............................................... ACL.18.2280 Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1979) 40 FLR 165; 25 ALR 91; [1979] ATPR 40-116 ............................................................................................... ACL.29.240, ACL.31.40 Ansett Aust Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-265 ............................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Apand Pty Ltd v The Kettle Chip Co Ltd [1994] FCA 1370 ............................................................. ACL.18.2120

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078 ............... CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRD.260, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.400 Application by G & M Stephens Cartage Contractors Pty Ltd, Re (1977) 16 ALR 387; [1977] ATPR 40-042 ....................................................... CCA.45.260, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.560, CCA.102.80 Aqua-Marine Marketing Pty Ltd v Pacific Reef Fisheries (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 908 ..................................................................................................................................................... ACL.29.100 Aquatic Air Pty Ltd v Siewert [2016] NSWCA 318 ........................................................................... ACL.237.220 Arbest Pty Ltd v State Bank of NSW Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-481 ....................................................... ACL.18.1300 Arcadi v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-473 ............. ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Ardmona, Letona and SPC, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-068 ............................................................. CCA.90.1140 Ardmona Fruit Products Co-op Ltd, Re [1987] ATPR (Com) 50-065 ............................................... CCA.90.1140 Argy v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112; 94 ALR 719; [1990] ATPR 41-015; [1990] ASC 55-963 .... ACL.18.340, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1840, ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.80, ACL.236.360, CCA.4.540, CCA.137B.20 Arktos Pty Ltd v Idyllic Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 119; [2004] ATPR 42-005 .................... CCA.82.140 Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 9) [2016] NSWSC 1005 ................................................................................... ACL.18.420 Arnison v Smith (1889) LR 41 Ch D 348 ............................................................................................. ACL.236.40 Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061 .............. CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.240, CCA.4E.300, CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.160, CCA.46.200, CCA.50.320, CCA.86.440 Arnotts Ltd v TPC (No 1) (1989) 21 FCR 297; 87 ALR 73; [1989] ATPR 40-941 ... CCA.157.20, CCA.157.60, CCA.157.80 Ascot Four Pty Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 61; (2009) 176 FCR 106; 255 ALR 441 .................... ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480, ACL.151.80 Asea Brown Boveri Pty Ltd v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, NSW, Giles J, No 50361 of 1989, 23 April 1990) ........................................................................ ACL.236.60, ACL.236.80 Ashbury v Reid [1961] WAR 49 ........................................................................................................... CCA.76.140 Ashfield, Botany Bay City, Burwood, Canada Bay City, City of Sydney, Leichardt, Marrickville, Randwick City, Waverley and Woollahra Councils, Re (A91143; 22 October 2009) .................................................................................................................................. CCA.90.1060 Ashton v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (NZ) [1975] 2 NZLR 717; [1975] STC 471; [1975] 1 WLR 1615; [1975] 3 All ER 225; (1975) 5 ATR 411; 119 SJ 809; [1975] TR 233 ........................................................................................................................................... CCA.44ZZRD.100 Asia Pacific Transport Pty Ltd, Re [2003] ACompT 1; [2003] ATPR 41-920 ......... CCA.44H.120, CCA.102.220 Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp v Aspen Skiing Co 472 US 585 (1985) ......................................... CCA.PTIIIA.40 Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd [2009] FCAFC 105; (2009) 179 FCR 323; 259 ALR 203 .............................. CCA.5.140 Assn of Australian Bookmaking Companies Inc, Re (A30243; 19 July 2006) ................................... CCA.90.760 Assn of Consulting Engineers Aust, Re (1979) 4 TPR 114 ................................................................. CCA.90.320 Assn of Consulting Engineers Aust (No 2), Re (1981) 4 TPR 437 ..................................................... CCA.90.320 Assn of Fluorocarbon Consumers & Manufacturers Inc, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-266 .............. CCA.90.1180 Association of Magazine Publishers of Aust Inc, Re (A91472 25 June 2015) ............. CCA.90.1120, CCA.91.40 Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Aust, Re (A91402; 4 June 2014) .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.90.760 Association of Superannuation Funds of Aust, Re (A91548 ................................................................ CCA.90.880 AstraZeneca Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1645 ........................................ ACL.18.1620 AstraZeneca Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Aust Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 22; [2006] ATPR 42-106; [2006] ASAL 55-155 .............................................................. ACL.18.20, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1620 Atkins v Master Builders Assn of NSW [2005] FCA 1402 ................................................................. CCA.86.140 Atkinson v Hastings Deering (Qld) Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 331; [1985] ATPR 40-566 .......................... ACL.3.60 Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696 ............................................................................... CCA.80.600 Attorney-General (Cth) v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1913) 18 CLR 30; [1913] AC 781; (1913) 19 ALR 405; 109 LT 258; 29 TLR 743; 83 LJPC 84 ............................................................. CCA.1.20

xxxviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Attorney-General (Cth) v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73; (1911) 14 CLR 387 ................................................................................................ CCA.44ZZRD.20, CCA.45.100, CCA.45.240 Attorney-General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557; 223 ALR 346; [2005] NSWCA 261 ................................................................................................................... ACL.21.60 Attorney-General; Ex rel Elisha v Holy Apostolic & Catholic Church of the East (Assyrian) Aust NSW Parish Assn (1989) 95 FLR 392; 14 IPR 609 ............................................................. ACL.18.2420 Attorney General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557; 223 ALR 346 ..................................................................... ACL.20.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.24.20 Au.Domain Administration Ltd v Domain Names Aust Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 424; (2004) 207 ALR 521; 61 IPR 81 .......... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.2020, ACL.18.2120, ACL.40.40, ACL.40.60, ACL.40.100, ACL.43.40 Aurizon Operations Ltd, Re (A91512 .................................................................................................. CCA.90.1380 Ausfield Pty Ltd v Leyland Motor Corp of Aust Ltd (No 2) (1977) 30 FLR 477; 14 ALR 457; [1977] ATPR 40-025 ................................................................................................................. CCA.51.260 Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1458; (2008) 251 ALR 166; [2008] ATPR 42-256 ..................................................... CCA.5.140, CCA.86.140 Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCA 521 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.87CA.20 Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351 ........................................ CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.160, CCA.5.120, CCA.44ZZRD.220 Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1464; [2009] ATPR 42-302 ........................................................ CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.340, CCA.86.140 Aussie Home Security Pty Ltd v Sales Systems Aust Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1458 ................................. ACL.4.200 Austin v Royal [1998] NSW ConvR 56,766 (55-863) .......................................................................... ACL.20.300 Australasian Assn of Pathology Practices Inc, Re [2004] ACompT 4; [2004] ATPR 41-985 ......... CCA.95AU.20 Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery, Re (A91106; 18 June 2009) ............................................ CCA.90.860 Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Re (2004) A90824 .................................................. CCA.90.740 Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Meat & Allied Trades Federation of Aust (1991) 32 FCR 318; 40 IR 303; 104 ALR 199; 34 AILR 121; [1991] ATPR 41-151 ............... CCA.45D.100 Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien [2000] HCA 30; (2000) 200 CLR 270; 172 ALR 28; 34 ACSR 250; 18 ACLC 500 ............................................................................................................. CCA.80.80 Australasian Performing Right Assn, Re [1999] ACompT 3; (1999) 151 FLR 1; 45 IPR 53; [1999] ATPR 41-701 ............................... CCA.88.220, CCA.90.560, CCA.90.640, CCA.90.1080, CCA.91.40 Australasian Performing Right Assn Ltd v Ceridale Pty Ltd (1990) 97 ALR 497; 19 IPR 1; [1991] ATPR 41-074 .............................................................................................. CCA.46.460, CCA.151AJ.60 Aust Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC [1989] ATPR 40-932 ...................... CCA.4E.160, CCA.50.100, CCA.81.60, CCA.81.100, CCA.81.120, CCA.81.140 Aust Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, Re (A91516) .............................................................................................. CCA.90.900 Aust and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Konza [2012] FCAFC 127; (2012) 206 FCR 450 ................................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.140 Aust in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1987] FCA 497; (1987) 17 FCR 211; 78 ALR 407; [1988] ATPR 40-841 .......................................................... CCA.PTIIIA.20 Australian Amalgamated Terminals Pty Ltd (AAT), Re (A91141; 3 December 2009) ....................... CCA.90.940 Australian American Assurance Co Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-112 ........................................... CCA.90.980 Australian Assn of Pathology Practices Inc, Re [2004] ACompT 4; (2004) 180 FLR 44; 206 ALR 271; [2004] ATPR 41-985 .............. CCA.47.300, CCA.88.120, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.120, CCA.90.180, CCA.90.420, CCA.90.560, CCA.90.860, CCA.95AT.20 Australian Associated Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1987] ATPR (Com) 50-053 ................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-049 ................. CCA.90.780, CCA.90.1300, CCA.90.1420 Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-092 ........................................ CCA.90.1300 Australian Automotive Repairers’ Assn (Political Action Committee) Inc v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] FCA 1568 ................................................................................................. CCA.47.300, CCA.86.160

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Australian Automotive Repairers’ Assn (Political Action Committee) Inc (in liq) v Insurance Aust Ltd [2006] FCAFC 33; [2006] ATPR 42-111 ......................................................................... CCA.47.640 Australian Bankers’ Association, Re (A91312; 8 November 2012) ..................................................... CCA.90.700 Australian Beauty Trade Suppliers Ltd v Conference & Exhibition Organisers Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 68; 99 ALR 474; [1991] ATPR 41-107 ................................................................... CCA.4.560 Australian Brick & Blocklaying Training Foundation Ltd, Re (A91133; 26 August 2009) ............... CCA.90.920 Australian Brick & Blocklaying Training Foundation Ltd, Re (A91418; 3 July 2014) ..................... CCA.90.880, CCA.90.940 Australian Bridal Centre Pty Ltd v Dawes Corp Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-072 ...................................... ACL.18.1920 Australian Broadcasting Corp v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 76 ALJR 1; 185 ALR 1; 54 IPR 161; [2001] ATPR 81-627 ..................... ACL.20.60, ACL.20.420, CCA.80.120 Australian Broadcasting Corp v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57; 80 ALJR 1672 ................................................................................................................................................... CCA.80.120 Australian Broadcasting Corp v Redmore Pty Ltd [1989] HCA 15; (1989) 166 CLR 454; 63 ALJR 306; 84 ALR 199 ................................................................................................................... CCA.45.480 Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers (WA) v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; 48 IR 452; 114 ALR 551; [1993] ATPR 41-245 .... CCA.4G.20, CCA.45D.120, CCA.45D.180, CCA.44ZZ.20 Australian CDF Forum Ltd, Re (A91403; 15 May 2014) ..................... CCA.90.700, CCA.90.740, CCA.90.1160 Australian Capital Territory v Munday [2000] FCA 653; 99 FCR 72 ................................................. CCA.4M.20 Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd, Re [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000 ........................... CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.140, CCA.44G.160, CCA.44G.180 Australian Communications Access Forum Inc, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-262 ............................... CCA.90.740 Australian Communications Network Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 221; (2005) 146 FCR 413; 224 ALR 344; [2006] ATPR 42-090 .................................................................... ACL.44.100, ACL.45.60 Australian Consolidated Investments Ltd v England (1995) 13 ACLC 296 ........................................ ACL.18.380 Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation Ltd, Re [2002] ATPR (Com) 50-289 ..................................... CCA.90.1140 Australian Dairy Farmers Ltd, Re (A90966; 26 April 2006) ....................................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 Australian Dental Assn, Re (A91340; 27 March 2013) ....................... CCA.90.860, CCA.90.1160, CCA.90.1420 Australian Direct Marketing Assn, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-276 .................................................... CCA.90.740 Australian Directors Guild Ltd, Re (A91499 13 August 2015) ............................................................ CCA.90.760 Australian Federation of Construction Contractors v Australian Building Construction Employees (1984) 73 FLR 61; 8 IR 124 ................................................................... ACL.232.20, CCA.80.220 Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Aust Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 149; 98 ALR 670; [1991] ATPR 41-079 ........................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1720 Australian Federation of Travel Agents Ltd, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-047 .................................. CCA.90.1400 Australian Gas Light Co v ACCC (No 2) [2003] FCA 1229; [2003] ATPR 41-962 ..................... CCA.163A.200 Australian Gas Light Co v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 ................................................................... CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.60, CCA.163A.140, MG.3.80 Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd v McClelland [1993] ATPR 41-254; [1993] ASC 56-230 ................. ACL.21.340 Australian Home Loans Ltd (t/as Aussie Home Loans) v Phillips (1998) 40 IPR 392; [1998] ATPR 41-626; [1998] AIPC 91-412 .......................... ACL.18.180, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2140, ACL.29.460 Australian Hotels Assn, Re (A90987; 1 March 2006) .......................................................................... CCA.90.760 Australian Hotels Assn, Re (A91257; 20 April 2011) .......................................................................... CCA.90.760 Australian Hotels Association, Re (A91513 .................................................................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1040 Australian Institute of Petroleum, Re (1983) 5 TPR 120 ..................................................................... CCA.90.880 Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Economists, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-149 ..................... CCA.90.740 Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387; [1933] HCA 35 ........................................ ACL.54.20 Australian Medical Assn, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-264 ................................................................... CCA.90.860 Australian Medical Association, Re (A91334; 11 September 2013) .......................... CCA.90.1160, CCA.90.1420 Australian Medical Association, Re (A91334; 21 February 2013) ....................................................... CCA.90.860 Australian Medical Association, Re (A91392; 19 March 2014) ......................................................... CCA.90.1160 Australian Medical Association (NSW) Ltd, Re (A91383; 4 December 2013) ................................. CCA.90.1160

xl

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Australian National University, Re (A91433; 19 November 2014) ............................... CCA.90.820, CCA.90.860 Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd v Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) (2008) 165 FCR 230; [2008] FCAFC 2 ......................................................................................................................... ACL.4.180 Australian Newsagents Federation, Re (A91134; 16 July 2009) ................................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1120 Australian Newsagents’ Federation Ltd, Re (A91349; 20 March 2013) .............................................. CCA.90.760 Australian Newsagents’ Federation Ltd, Re (CB00156 ................................................................... CCA.93AB.100 Australian Newsagents’ Federation Ltd, Re (A91407; 1 August 2014) ............................................. CCA.90.1120 Australian Nurserymen’s Fruit Improvement Co Ltd, Re (A90992; 7 June 2006) ........................... CCA.90.1140 Australian Ocean Line Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1983) 66 FLR 453; 5 TPR 265; 47 ALR 497; 1 IPR 119 ........................................................ ACL.18.80, ACL.18.1040, ACL.19.20 Australian Olympic Committee, Inc v Telstra Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 857 ......................................... ACL.18.2240 Australian Paint Manufacturers’ Federation Inc, Re (A91251; 20 April 2011) ................................... CCA.90.880 Australian Paint Manufacturers’ Federation Inc, Re (A91504 29 October 2015) ............................... CCA.90.900 Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 504 ...................................... CCA.88.200, CCA.102.260 Australian Payments Clearing Assn Ltd, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-136 .......................................... CCA.90.700 Australian Payments Clearing Assn Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-257 .......................................... CCA.90.700 Australian Payments Clearing Assn Ltd, Re (A91497; 31 August 2015) ............................................ CCA.90.700 Australian Payments Clearing Assn Ltd, Re (variation approved 8 March 2000) .............................. CCA.91A.80 Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd v ACCC [1997] FCA 175; (1997) 73 FCR 75; 143 ALR 381; [1997] ATPR 41-555 ...................... CCA.87B.20, CCA.87B.120, CCA.87B.220, CCA.87B.280, CCA.50.720 Australian Phosphate Purchasing Assn, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-036 .......................................... CCA.90.1020 Australian Postal Corp v Digital Post Aust [2013] FCAFC 153 .......................................................... CCA.86.440 Australian Property Institute Ltd, Re (A91522 ..................................................................................... CCA.90.740 Australian Retail Credit Assn Ltd, Re (A91482 3 December 2015) .................................................... CCA.90.960 Australian Road Transport Federation, Re (1982) 1 TPR 168 ............................................................. CCA.90.360 Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768 ........................ ACL.4.220, CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.240, CCA.4E.300, CCA.4E.320, CCA.4E.340 Australian Seafood Industries Pty Ltd, Re (A91444 ........................................................................... CCA.90.1140 Australian Soc of Accountants v Federation of Australian Accountants Inc (1987) 9 IPR 282; [1987] ATPR 40-796 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.1840 Australian Soc of Anaesthetists, Re [2000] ATPR (Com) 50-278 ........................................................ CCA.90.860 Australian Society of Accountants v Federation of Australian Accountants Inc (1987) 9 IPR 282; [1987] ATPR 40-796 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.2380 Australian Society of Ophthalmologists Inc, Re (A91360; 19 September 2013) ................................ CCA.90.860 Australian Society of Ophthalmologists Inc (A91360; 26 February 2013) ............... CCA.90.1160, CCA.90.1420 Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1981) 148 CLR 121 ...................... ACL.44.60 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-125 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-133 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-152 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1995] ATPR (Com) 50-210 ............................... CCA.47.300, CCA.90.1360 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-230 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-234 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-258 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-275 ...................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, Re (2004) A90881 ........................................................................... CCA.90.1300 Australian Surf Life Saver Pty Ltd v S & I Publishing Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 972; (1998) 43 IPR 595; [1998] ATPR 41-661 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.1980 Australian Swimmers Assn Inc, Re (A40106; 22 March 2006) ........................................................... CCA.90.760 Australian Telecommunications Corp v Hutchison Telecommunications (Aust) Ltd (1990) 17 IPR 615; [1990] ATPR 41-008 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.2400 Australian Tobacco Leaf Corp Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-124 .................................................. CCA.90.740 Australian Transmission Rebuilders Assn, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-121 ........................................ CCA.90.740

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xli

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Australian Tyre Dealers’ and Retreaders’ Assn, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-162 ............................... CCA.90.660 Australian Tyre Industry Council, Re (A91336; 11 April 2013) .......................................................... CCA.90.880 Australian Union of Students, Re (1997) 140 FLR 167; 147 ALR 458; [1997] ATPR 41-573 ...... CCA.44B.100, CCA.44G.140, CCA.44G.180 Australian Unity Friendly Soc v Health Insurance Commission [1995] ATPR 41-392 ..................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1620, ACL.18.1680 Australian Wagering Council Ltd, Re (CB00284 ........................ CCA.93AB.60, CCA.93AB.80, CCA.93AB.100 Australian Wool Exchange Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-154 ...................................................... CCA.90.1140 Australian Wool Growers Assn Ltd, Re [1999] ACompT 4; [2000] ATPR 41-774 ......................... CCA.90.1140, CCA.101.160, CCA.102.80 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290; [2005] ATPR 42-053 ... CCA.86.140, CCA.86.160 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk (No 2) [2005] FCA 1307 ................................................ CCA.86.160 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641; 11 ALJR 186; [1937] HCA 51 ................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.2120 Australian Writers Guild, Re (A91274; 25 January 2012) ................................................................... CCA.90.760 Australian Writers Guild, Re (A91339; 28 February 2013) ................................................................. CCA.90.760 Ausviet Travel v Direct Flights International Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] ATPR 41-677 ......................... ACL.224.140 Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment [2010] VSC 389; (2010) 241 FLR 360 ..................... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.100, CCA.2B.80, CCA.4.540, CCA.4.560 Aut 6 Pty Ltd v Wellington Place Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-202 ........................................................ CCA.4E.340 Auto Masters Aust Pty Ltd v Bruness Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 286; [2003] ATPR 46-229 ................ ACL.21.360, CCA.51AE.40 Avcare Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-150 ......................................................................................... CCA.90.940 Avoca Consultants Pty Ltd v Millennium3 Financial Services Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 883; (2009) 179 FCR 46; 73 ACSR 307 ..................................................................... CCA.131A.20, CCA.131A.60 Awad v Twin Creeks Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 200 ................... ACL.4.80, ACL.243.20, ACL.243.40, ACL.243.60, CCA.87.20 Azar v Citigroup Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 380 ..................................................................................... ACL.20.300

B B & I Line plc v Sealink Harbours Ltd (1992) 5 CMLR 255 .............................. CCA.44G.140, CCA.PTIIIA.60 BFC Stores Pty Ltd, Re (CB00178 .................................................................................................. CCA.93AB.100 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2006] FCA 1764; [2007] ATPR 42-141 ......................................................................................................... CCA.44B.120, CCA.44B.140 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2007] FCAFC 157; (2007) 162 FCR 234; 247 ALR 104; [2007] ATPR 42-190 ..................................................................... CCA.44B.140 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] HCA 45; (2008) 236 CLR 145; 82 ALJR 1482; 249 ALR 418 ...................................................................................... CCA.44B.140 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd, Re (A90981; 1 February 2006) ........................................................ CCA.90.1220 BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corp Pty Ltd v Steuler Services GmbH & Co KG [2014] VSCA 338 .......................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.580 BHP Billiton Petroleum (North West Shelf) Pty Ltd, Re (A91220-3; 8 September 2010) ................. CCA.90.940 BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-116 .................................................................... CCA.90.940 BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-144 .................................................................... CCA.90.940 BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd, Re [1999] ACompT 2 .................................................................................. CCA.102.100 BHPB Freight Pty Ltd v Cosco Oceania Chartering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1656 ................ CCA.87CB.20, CCA.87CB.40 BLH Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd v Pro 3 Products Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 833 ................. ACL.18.1640 BMW Aust Ltd v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 167; (2004) 207 ALR 452; [2004] ATPR 42-012 ............ ACL.105.20, ACL.107.140, ACL.232.20, CCA.86C.120, CCA.86C.160, CCA.163A.160, CCA.80.40, CCA.80.80, CCA.80.220, CCA.86.220 BMW Aust Ltd v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 167; [2004] ATPR 42-012 .................................................. ACL.102.20 BP Aust Ltd v TPC (1986) 12 FCR 118; 66 ALR 148; [1986] ATPR 40-701 .................................... CCA.48.260

xlii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

BP Aust Pty Ltd, Re (A91485 18 August 2015) ................................................................................. CCA.90.1400 BWK Elders Aust Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Co Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 87; [2002] ATPR 41-860 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.138.80 Bailey v Allgas Inc (2002) 284 F 3d 1237; [2002-1] Trade Cases 73,607 .......................................... CCA.46.560 Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539 ............................................................................................... CCA.37.40 Ballard v Sperry Rand Aust Ltd (1975) 6 ALR 696; [1975] ATPR 40-006 ............... ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.280, CCA.84.80 Balmedie Pty Ltd v Russo [1998] FCA 980 ......................................................................................... CCA.84.120 Bank of Kuwait and the Middle East v The Ship MV “Mawashi Al Gasseem” (No 2) [2007] FCA 815; (2007) 240 ALR 120 ....................................................................................................... CCA.86.220 Bankstown City Council, Re (A91409; 29 May 2014) ...................................................................... CCA.90.1060 Bannerhey Pty Ltd v 1800 000 000 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 53 .............. ACL.18.1580, ACL.18.2020, ACL.236.60 Bannerman v Mildura Fruit Juices Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 581; 55 ALR 367; [1984] ATPR 40-467 ............................................................................................... CCA.155.20, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.580 Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 ................................. ACL.18.1160 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58; 88 ALJR 372 ......................................... ACL.163.40 Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82 ............................................................................................................................................. CCA.138.80 Barclays Bank v O’Brien [1993] QB 109; [1992] 3 WLR 593; [1992] 4 All ER 983 ......................... ACL.20.60 Barnes v Forty Two International Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 152 ............................................................ ACL.236.40 Barnett v Abvay Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-518 ................................................................................... ACL.18.1860 Barneys Blu-Crete Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (1979) 43 FLR 463; [1979] ATPR 40-139 ................................................................................................................................................. CCA.4K.20 Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Ltd [2007] FCA 835; (2007) 163 IR 207; 59 AILR 100-676 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.1460, CCA.4.540 Barto v GPR Management Services Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 389; 105 ALR 339; 34 AILR 141; [1992] ATPR 41-162 ...................................................................... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1460, CCA.4.540 Barton v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 95; 54 ALR 541; 5 IPR 42; [1984] ATPR 40-470 ....................................................... ACL.18.480, ACL.29.340, ACL.151.60, ACL.212.20, CCA.163.40 Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740 .................................................................................................. CCA.37.40 Barton v Westpac Banking Corp (1983) 76 FLR 101; 50 ALR 397; [1983] ATPR 40-407 ................ ACL.36.20, ACL.36.40, ACL.36.60 Bartsch v Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 409 ........................................................................ CCA.4M.20 Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334; 73 ALJR 522; 161 ALR 399; [1999] ATPR 41-682 .............. CCA.2A.100, CCA.2B.40, CCA.2B.140, CCA.75B.60, CCA.6.100 Bateman v Slatyer (1987) 71 ALR 553; 8 IPR 33; [1987] ATPR 40-762; [1987] ASC 55-559 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.400 Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 1200 .................................................................................................................. ACL.18.100, ACL.18.1540 Bathurst Regional Council, Re (A91387; 12 February 2014) ............................................................ CCA.90.1060 Bauer v Power Pacific International Media Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 349 ............................. CCA.80.80, CCA.80.620 Baxter v British Airways plc (1988) 82 ALR 298; [1988] ATPR 40-877 ................. ACL.18.1220, ACL.18.2080 Baxter International Inc. – proposed acquisition of Gambro AB (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 28 November 2013) ...................................................................................................... CCA.50.220 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 43 FCR 1; 115 ALR 411; 11 ACSR 103 ............................ ACL.18.1440 Beckett v Cohen [1972] 1 WLR 1593; [1973] 1 All ER 120 .............................................................. ACL.29.280 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569; 51 ALJR 247; 12 ALR 333 ................ ACL.CH4.20, CCA.79.100 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618 ............... CCA.80.120 Bega Cooperative Society Ltd v Milk Authority of the ACT (unreported, Fed Ct of Aust, Neaves J, 12 May 1992) ................................................................................................................... CCA.86.160 Begbie v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-288; [1994] Aust Contract Reports 90-038; [1993] ASC 56-254 .............. ACL.3.60, ACL.20.60, ACL.20.300, ACL.21.340, CCA.4.500 Bell v Australasian Recyclers (WA) Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-644 ...................................................... ACL.18.400

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xliii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Belna Pty Ltd v Irwin [2009] NSWCA 46 ......................................................................................... CCA.139A.40 Beluga Shipping GmbH & Co v Headway Shipping Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1770; (2008) 251 ALR 620 ................................................................................................................ CCA.86.60, CCA.138.60 Benlist Pty Ltd v Olivetti Aust Pty Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-043 ................. ACL.18.420, ACL.18.1860, ACL.30.60 Bennett v Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 211; (2012) 202 FCR 72 .... CCA.84.120, CCA.87CB.40 Berry v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1953) 89 CLR 653 ........... ACL.21.140, ACL.29.140, CCA.87B.60 Berwin v Donohue [1915] HCA 79; (1915) 21 CLR 1 ........................................................................ CCA.163.80 Bethune v Qconn Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1485 ......................................................................................... ACL.54.160 Betta Foods Aust Pty Ltd v Betta Fruit Bars Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 347; [1998] ATPR 41-624 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.2280 Bevanere Pty Ltd v Lubidineuse (1985) 7 FCR 325; 59 ALR 334; 4 IPR 467; [1983] ATPR 40-565 ..................................................................................................... ACL.18.240, ACL.18.580, CCA.4.540 Bill Acceptance Corp Ltd v GWA Ltd (1983) 78 FLR 171; 50 ALR 242; 1 IPR 496; [1983] ATPR 40-408 ..................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.400 Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Ltd (2009) 180 FCR 191; [2009] FCAFC 131 ................................................................................ ACL.18.440, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.540, ACL.18.2460 Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Ltd (No 1) [2008] FCA 1760; (2008) 79 IPR 454 ............................................................................................... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2220, ACL.29.440 Bionic Products Pty Ltd, Re [1998] ACompT 2 ................................................................................. CCA.103.180 Birkenfield Pty Ltd, Re [1987] ATPR (Com) 50-052 ......................................................................... CCA.90.1180 Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238; (2006) 67 NSWLR 9 ......................................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.280 Blacker v National Aust Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 681 ............................................................................... ACL.4.200 Blacker v National Aust Bank Ltd [2001] FCA 254; [2001] ATPR 41-817 .............. ACL.18.1300, ACL.236.240 Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd v Overliese [2010] FCA 13; (2010) 84 IPR 505; 62 AILR 101-098 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.60 Blacktown City Council v Anavak Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-191 ............................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1880 Blockey v FCT (1932) 31 CLR 503; 29 ALR 79 ................................................................................... CCA.4.100 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 ....................................................................................................... ACL.20.60 BlueScope Steel Ltd/Hills Holdings Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 4 August 2014) ........................................................................................................................... CCA.50.160, CCA.50.200 Bluehive Pty Ltd v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1307 ............................................................... ACL.18.1900 Bluehive Pty Ltd v Dukemaster Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1621 ................................................... ACL.18.1900 Board of Airline Representatives of Aust Inc, Re (A91200; 14 May 2010) ............... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1400 Board of Airline Representatives of Aust Inc, Re (A91466 25 March 2015) ................................... CCA.90.1400 Bodum v DKSH Aust Pty Ltd (2011) 280 ALR 639; [2011] FCAFC 98 .................... ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1080, ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.1600, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2200, ACL.29.20 Body Bronze International Pty Ltd v Fehcorp Pty Ltd (2011) 34 VR 536; 282 ALR 571; [2011] VSCA 196; .................................................................................. ACL.22.20, ACL.21.200, ACL.21.340 Body Bronze International Pty Ltd v Soleil Tanning Oxford Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 371 ..................... ACL.20.360 Boland v Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209; 167 ALR 575 ......... ACL.18.620, ACL.236.20, ACL.236.160, ACL.236.180, CCA.6.60 Bond v Barry [2008] FCAFC 115 ................................................................. ACL.19.40, ACL.19.60, ACL.19.100 Bond Corp Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 215; 71 ALR 615; 3 BPR 434; [1987] ATPR 40-771; [1987] ASC 55-557 ......................................................... CCA.4.540, CCA.86.160 Bonney Forge Pty Ltd v Press & Shear Machinery Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-869; [1988] ASC 55-668 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.1640, ACL.243.60 Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 ......................... CCA.4E.220, CCA.PTIV.20, CCA.45.340, CCA.46.160, CCA.46.180, CCA.46.320, CCA.46.340, CCA.46.520, CCA.46.560, CCA.46.620, CCA.46.640, CCA.46.660, CCA.46.940 Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2015] VSC 352 ............................... CCA.155AAA.60, CCA.155.580 Botany Bay Council, City of v Jazabas Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 94 ....................................................... ACL.4.80

xliv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1990) 170 CLR 276; 64 ALJR 406; 93 ALR 460; [1990] ATPR 41-033 ........................................................................................... CCA.2B.200, CCA.4.260 Bowler v Hilda Pty Ltd (1998) 80 FCR 191; 153 ALR 95; [1998] ATPR 41-625; [1998] V ConvR 54-585 ..................................................................... ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1160, ACL.30.60 Boyce v Cafred Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 367; [1985] ATPR 40-527 ..................................................... CCA.86.500 Boyle v Wright [1969] VR 699; (1969) 23 LGRA 320 ........................................................................ ACL.208.40 Brabazon v Western Mail Pty Ltd (1985) 8 FCR 122; 4 IPR 408; 58 ALR 712; [1985] ATPR 40-549 .............................................................................................................. ACL.236.540, CCA.4K.20 Bradford House Pty Ltd v Leroy Fashions Group Ltd (1983) 46 ALR 305 ........................................ ACL.29.360 Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1 ................ CCA.2B.20, CCA.2B.80, CCA.2B.180, CCA.2B.200, CCA.4.560, CCA.51.40 Bradken Ltd v Norcast S.ár.L [2013] FCAFC 123 ............ ACL.18.2040, CCA.44ZZRD.200, CCA.44ZZRJ.100, CCA.44ZZRU.20 Bradley v Voltex Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1230 .............................................................. ACL.21.380 Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd v Rank Electronic Housewares Pty Ltd (1983) 78 FLR 446; [1984] ATPR 40-436 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1080 Brambles Holdings Ltd v TPC (No 2) [1980] FCA 120; (1980) 44 FLR 182; 32 ALR 328; [1980] ATPR 40-179 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.77.80 Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd [2005] FCAFC 256; (2005) 148 FCR 68; [2005] ATPR 46-267 ........................................................... ACL.18.1660, ACL.18.1840, CCA.4.540 Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 ............ CCA.75B.20, CCA.4.320, CCA.5.20, CCA.5.60, CCA.5.100, CCA.5.160, CCA.5.180, CCA.80.280, CCA.86.400, CCA.138.60 Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2003] FCAFC 153; (2003) 130 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-946 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.86.60 Bride v Shire of Katanning [2016] FCA 65 ....................................................................... ACL.18.60, CCA.2C.80 Bridge v Deacons [1984] 1 AC 705 ...................................................................................................... CCA.51.200 Bridge Oil Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-073 ................................................................................ CCA.90.1020 Bridges v Bridge Stockbrokers Ltd (1984) 4 FCR 21; [1984] ATPR 40-477 .................................... ACL.18.2380 Bright v Femcare [2000] FCA 742; (2000) 175 ALR 50 ..................................................................... CCA.138.80 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; 12 ALJ 100; [1938] ALR 334 .............. CCA.76.160, CCA.77.40 Brisbane City Council, Re (A91500 8 October 2015) ........................................................................ CCA.90.1060 Brisbane Gas Co Ltd v Hartogen Energy Ltd (No 2) (1982) 60 FLR 343; 2 TPR 107; 42 ALR 685; [1982] ATPR 40-304 .................................. CCA.50.600, CCA.50.720, CCA.80.40, CCA.87CA.20 Bristol-Myers Squibb Aust Pty Ltd v Astra Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 256; (1999) 45 IPR 144 .............................................................................. ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1620, CCA.80.140 British Basic Slag Ltd Agreements, Re [1963] 1 WLR 727; [1963] 2 All ER 807 ................ CCA.44ZZRD.120, CCA.45.80 Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC v Miller (2000) 49 IPR 7; [2000] FCA 699; [2000] ATPR 41-776; [2000] ASAL 55-048 ................................................................................... ACL.18.860, ACL.18.2440 Broadway Delivery Corp v United Parcel Service of America Inc (1981) 651 F 2d 122; [1981-1] Trade Cases 64,068 ............................................................................................................ CCA.46.560 Broderbund Software Inc v Computermate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 22 IPR 215; [1992] ATPR 41-155 .................................................................................................. CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Trade Practices Tribunal [1980] ATPR 40-173 ............................. CCA.101.60 Bropho v Western Aust (1990) 171 CLR 1; 64 ALJR 374; 93 ALR 207 ............................................. CCA.51.40 Brosnan v Katke [2012] FCA 1249 ....................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 Brosnan v Katke [2016] FCAFC 1 .................................................................................. ACL.236.40, CCA.86.740 Brown v Jam Factory Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 35; (1981) 53 FLR 340; 35 ALR 79; [1981] ATPR 40-213 ............................................................................................................... ACL.30.40, ACL.243.180 Brown v Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd (1985) 60 ALR 595; [1985] ASC 55-413; [1985] ATPR 40-576 ............................................................................................ ACL.18.60, ACL.207.20, CCA.4.540

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xlv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Brown v Southport Motors Pty Ltd (1982) 43 ALR 183; [1982] ATPR 40-306 ................................. ACL.29.100 Brown v Telstra Corp Ltd [2004] FCA 1365 ...................................................................................... ACL.18.2020 Brownbill v Kenworth Truck Sales (NSW) Pty Ltd (1982) 59 FLR 56; 39 ALR 191; [1982] ATPR 40-269 ..................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.660 Bryant Hotels Pty Ltd v Keith Harris & Co Ltd [1980] FCA 148; (1980) 49 FLR 137; 33 ALR 437 ............................................................................................. ACL.232.20, ACL.232.140, CCA.80.220 Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353; 46 ALJR 23; [1972] ALR 370 ........................ CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 Building Workers’ Industrial Union of Aust v Odco Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 104; 37 IR 380; 99 ALR 735; 33 AILR 163; [1991] ATPR 41-092 ....................................................................... CCA.45D.180 Bullabidgee Pty Ltd v McCleary [2011] NSWCA 259 .................................................... ACL.18.20, ACL.236.40 Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464; 10 IR 18; 60 ALR 235; [1985] ATPR 40-577 ............................................................... CCA.4D.160, CCA.80.140 Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 2) (1985) 5 FCR 476; 11 IR 44; 58 ALR 373 ...................................................................................................... CCA.4D.160, CCA.4.260 Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd [2006] ATPR 42-115 ........................................................... ACL.3.60 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 18 FCR 212; 76 ALR 173; [1988] ATPR 40-835 ....................................... CCA.2A.60, CCA.2B.20, CCA.2B.80, CCA.2B.200 Burica Pty Ltd v Tops to Bottoms (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 39 IPR 447; [1997] FCA 1147; [1997] ATPR 41-621 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.2240 Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 17; (2002) 209 CLR 282; 76 ALJR 749; [2002] ATPR 41-869 ........................................................................... ACL.236.200, ACL.237.180, CCA.87.60, CCA.87.460 Burswood Management Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1990) 23 FCR 144; 20 ALD 357; 94 ALR 220; [1990] ATPR 41-032 ....................................................................................................... CCA.170.20 Burt v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-123 .................................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1300 Burwood Council & others, Re (A91352; 19 June 2013) .......................................... CCA.90.1060, CCA.90.1340 Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v ATC (1988) 15 ALD 479; 82 ALR 499 .................................... CCA.46.680 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592; 79 ALJR 308; [2004] ATPR 42-033; [2004] HCA 60 ....... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.40, ACL.18.100, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.300, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.580 Butt v Tingey [1993] FCA 369; [1993] ATPR (Digest) 46-110 ........ ACL.18.1840, ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140, CCA.76.80 Butt v Tingey (unreported, Fed Ct, 4 March 1993) ............................................................................ ACL.18.1840 Byers v Dorotea Pty Ltd (1986) 69 ALR 715; [1987] ATPR 40-760; [1987] ASC 55-534 ............. ACL.18.1860, ACL.237.80, CCA.87.140

C CA Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1539; [2001] ATPR 41-793 ........... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1560 CALMS Ltd, Re (A91276; 27 February 2012) ..................................................................................... CCA.90.860 CBS Records Aust Ltd v Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd (1987) 72 ALR 270; 8 IPR 473; [1987] AIPC 90-380; [1987] ATPR 40-783 ............................................................................. CCA.80.540 CCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355 ....................................................................... CCA.45.100 CCP Australian Airships Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 232; [2005] ATPR 42-042; [2005] ASAL 55-139 ................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1280, ACL.36.60 CFMEU v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39; (2010) 194 IR 462 ............................................ ACL.224.200, CCA.76.600 CFMEU v Hadgkiss [2007] FCAFC 197; (2007) 169 FCR 151; 248 ALR 169 ................................... ACL.29.80 CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd v ACCC [2001] FCA 757; [2001] ATPR 41-826 ................................. ACL.20.40 CI JI Family Pty Ltd v National Australian Nappies (NAN) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 79 ..................... ACL.18.2180, ACL.232.60 CPA Aust Ltd v Dunn [2007] FCA 1966; (2007) IPR 495; [2007] ATPR 42-205 ..... ACL.18.1840, ACL.29.440, CCA.6.60 CPI Group Ltd v Stora Enso Aust Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 160 .................................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1780 CRW Pty Ltd v Sneddon [1972] AR (NSW) 17 ................................................................................... ACL.18.680

xlvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

CS Energy Ltd, Re (A91529 .................................................................................................................. CCA.90.840 CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Aust Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 279; [2003] ATPR 41-929; [2003] AIPC 91-883; [2003] ASAL 55-101 .............................................................................................. ACL.18.2220 CSR Ltd & Boral Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 6 August 2015) ................................ CCA.50.300 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2008] FCA 88; (2008) 2 BFRA 584; 246 ALR 137; [2008] ATPR 42-218 ........................................................... CCA.155AAA.60, CCA.76.860, CCA.76.900 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1718 .................. CCA.138.80 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (2007) 159 FCR 397; 239 ALR 662; 72 IPR 261; [2007] FCAFC 70; [2007] ATPR 42-161 ................. ACL.18.180, ACL.18.2120, CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Ltd (1980) 2 NSWLR 851; 55 ALJR 333; 32 ALR 387; [1981] 1 All ER 213; [1981] 1 WLR 193 ............................................. ACL.18.180, ACL.18.2120 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd, Re [1981] ATPR 40-200 ........................... CCA.47.480, CCA.90.420, CCA.93.280 Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Ltd (2005) 147 FCR 434; 56 ACSR 309; 24 ACLC 1; [2005] FCAFC 265; ............................................................................................ ACL.18.520 Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Ltd (2005) 55 ACSR 145; 23 ACLC 1,713; [2005] FCA 1280 ................................................................................................................... ACL.18.520 Calmao Pty Ltd v Stradbroke Waters Co-op Society Ltd (1989) 21 FCR 28; 89 ALR 507; 16 IPR 265; [1989] ATPR 40-984 .............................. ACL.21.300, ACL.236.240, CCA.82.160, CCA.82.180 Caltex Aust Petroleum Pty Ltd v Charben Haulage Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 271 ........ ACL.18.480, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.60, ACL.236.80 Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd v ACCC [2001] FCA 1503; (2001) 115 FCR 191; 109 IR 331; 188 ALR 750 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.80.640 Cameron v Goldtek Aust Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-513 ..................................................................... ACL.18.1940 Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-417 .......................................................................... ACL.21.340 Camilleri v The Trust Co (Nominees) Ltd [2015] FCA 1468 .............................................................. CCA.86.360 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304; 83 ALJR 903; 257 ALR 610; [2009] HCA 25 ............... ACL.4.120, ACL.18.20, ACL.18.40, ACL.18.120, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.360, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.500, ACL.18.1120, ACL.18.1940, ACL.236.40 Campbell v Metway Leasing Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-630; [1998] ASAL 55-001 ................ ACL.50.20, ACL.50.80 Campomar Sociedad, Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; 74 ALJR 573; 169 ALR 677; [2000] HCA 12; [2000] ATPR (Digest) 46–201 ..................... ACL.9.20, ACL.18.20, ACL.18.160, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.320, ACL.18.540, ACL.18.2120, ACL.29.20 Canny Gabriel Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd [1974] HCA 22; (1974) 131 CLR 321 ..................................................................................................................... CCA.4J.20 Canon Aust Pty Ltd v Patton [2007] NSWCA 246 ............................................................................... ACL.21.340 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Valcorp Fine Foods Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 8; [2002] ATPR 41-856; [2002] ASAL 55-073 .................................................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.320, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1560 Capital Networks Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd [2004] FCA 808; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-254 ............................................................................................................. CCICF.5.20, CCICF.5.40 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380 .............................................. CCA.80.40 Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 853; [2004] ATPR 42-014; [2004] ASAL 55-130 ............................... ACL.9.140, ACL.55.140, ACL.138.20, ACL.138.80, ACL.138.120 Caribbean Broadcasting System Ltd v Cable & Wireless plc 148 F 3rd 1080 (1998) .................. CCA.PTIIIA.40 Carlton & United Breweries (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing (NSW) Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 351; [1987] ATPR 40-820 ............................................................................................ CCA.4F.40, CCA.45.240 Carlton and United Breweries Ltd v Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd [1986] HCA 38; (1986) 161 CLR 543; 60 ALJR 548 .................................................................................................................... CCA.86.280 Carney v Herbert [1985] AC 301; [1984] 3 WLR 1303; [1985] 1 All ER 438 .................................... CCA.4L.20 Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan [1987] ATPR (Digest) 46-025; [1987] ASC 55-553 ................................... ACL.3.60 Carsales.com Ltd/Telstra Corp Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 13 June 2013) ............. CCA.50.200 Carson Machinery Nominees Pty Ltd v Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-934 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.45.720

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xlvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Aust Pty Ltd, Re (CB00144 .................................................... CCA.93AB.100 Casaceli v Natuzzi S.p.A. [2012] FCA 691 ...................................................................... CCA.86.80, CCA.86.300 Cashcard Aust Ltd & Bank of China (Aust) Ltd, Re (A91119; 4 June 2009) .................................... CCA.90.700 Cashcard Aust Ltd, Re (A91429; 27 August 2014) .............................................................................. CCA.90.700 Cassidy v Medical Benefits Fund of Aust (No 2) (2003) 12 ANZ Ins Cas 61-549; [2002] FCA 1097 ..................................................................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1620, CCA.80.380 Cassidy v NRMA Health Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1228; [2002] ATPR 41-891 ............. ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140 Cassidy v Saatchi & Saatchi Aust Pty Ltd (2004) 134 FCR 585; [2004] FCAFC 34; [2004] ATPR 41-980; [2004] ASAL 55-118 ... ACL.18.40, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1740, ACL.29.160, CCA.131A.60 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Aust [1986] HCA 58; (1986) 161 CLR 148; 60 ALJR 679 ......... CCA.80.120 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 509; 64 ALR 536; [1986] ATPR 40-653 ............................................................. CCA.4C.40, CCA.4.520, CCA.47.140 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751 ............... ACL.29.60, CCA.4.500, CCA.4.520, CCA.47.80, CCA.47.140, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.340, CCA.47.660 Casuarina Business Precinct Stakeholders Committee (A91201 & A91202; 12 May 2010) ........... CCA.90.1060, CCA.90.1240 Cat Media Pty Ltd v Opti-Healthcare Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 133; [2003] ATPR 41-933; [2003] ASAL 55-103 ................................................................................................ CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs [2010] FCA 510; (2010) 186 FCR 168; 269 ALR 434 ....................................... CCA.5.140 Cavalier Marketing (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rasell (1991) 96 ALR 375 .................................. ACL.54.160, ACL.55.140 Cenepro Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corp Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, NSW, Cole J, 15 November 1990) ........................................................................................................ ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1540 Central Equity Ltd v Central Corp Pty Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 481; [1995] ATPR 41-443 .... ACL.30.20, ACL.30.60 Central Queensland Local Government Association, Re (A91246; 13 January 2011) ...................... CCA.90.1060 Chan Cuong Su ( t/as Ausviet Travel) v Direct Flights International Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 78; [1999] ATPR 41-677 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.224.100 Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 All ER 142; [1962] 3 WLR 694 ...... CCA.4F.40, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.240 Change Group International PLC v City Exchange Mart Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1048 ...................... ACL.18.2260, ACL.232.60, CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Ltd v ACCC [2008] FCAFC 114 ......................................... ACL.19.40, ACL.19.80 Chanute, City of v Williams Natural Gas Co [1990] 1 Trade Cases 68,967 .................................... CCA.44G.100 Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 4) [2001] FCA 1106; (2001) 123 FCR 62; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-214 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.4.540 Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001] FCA 1106; (2001) 123 FCR 62 .................... CCA.4.500, CCA.6.20 Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; (1998) 195 CLR 232 ........................................................................ ACL.236.40 Charben Haulage Pty Ltd v Environmental & Earth Sciences Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 403; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-252 ...................................... ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1840, ACL.18.1860, ACL.30.60 Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Comm [1999] FCA 452 .... CCA.46.640, CCA.46.940 Chase Manhattan Overseas Corp v Chase Corp Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 375; 70 ALR 303; [1986] FCA 404; [1986] ATPR 40-750 ........................................................................ ACL.18.80, ACL.18.440 Chevron Aust Pty Ltd, Re (A91139; 5 November 2009) ................................................................... CCA.90.1220 Chiarabaglio v Westpac Banking Corp [1989] ATPR 40-971 ................ ACL.18.400, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1300 Chime Communications Pty Ltd (No 2), Re (2009) 234 FLR 210; [2009] ACompT 2 ...................... CCA.31.20, CCA.45.280, CCA.46.200, CCA.50.180 Choo v Zhang [2016] NSWCA 193 ..................................................................................................... ACL.18.1940 Chris Ford Enterprises Pty Ltd v BH & J Badenhop Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 75; 60 ALR 400; 4 IPR 485; [1985] ATPR 40-568 ................................................................... ACL.18.1080, ACL.18.2200 Christensen v Scott [1996] 1 NZLR 273; 7 NZCLC 260,945 ..................................... ACL.236.440, CCA.82.260 Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 ... ACL.18.360, ACL.18.1860 City of Joondalup, Re (A91431; 6 August 2014) ............................................................................... CCA.90.1060

xlviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Clarence City Council, Re (A91408; 2 April 2014) ........................................................................... CCA.90.1060 Clark Equipment Aust Ltd v Covcat Pty Ltd (1987) 71 ALR 367; [1987] ATPR 40-768 .................. ACL.18.420 Clarke v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-983 ............................................................................. ACL.107.140 Clay & Brick Paver Assn, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-274 ................................................................. CCA.90.920 Clean Energy Council (A91365; 23 September 2013) .......................................................................... CCA.90.740 Clean Energy Council Ltd (A91495; 23 September 2015) .................................................................. CCA.91B.20 Clearstream Banking AG v Commission of the European Communities [2009] EUECJ T-301/04 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.46.20 Clifford v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 916 .......................................................... CCA.131A.60 Clift Food Stores Inc v Kroger Inc [1969] Trade Cases 72,923 .......................................................... CCA.46.560 Clifton Sands Pty Ltd v Australian Safety Products Pty Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, WA, 26 February 1998) ........................................................................................................ ACL.18.1840, ACL.18.1940 Clinch v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1974] QB 76 .................................................................... CCA.155.220 Clubs Aust, Re (A91381; 6 March 2014) .............................................................................................. CCA.90.760 Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd (No 3), Re [2013] ACompT 3 ........ CCA.101A.40, CCA.45.280, CCA.47.480, CCA.93.20, CCA.93.280 Coca-Cola Amatil/Berri (ACCC Competition Assessment 8 October 2003) ....................................... CCA.50.280 Coca Cola Co v PepsiCo Inc (No 2) [2014] FCA 1287 ..................................................................... ACL.18.2200 Coca Cola Export Corp, Re (1978) 4 TPR 523 .................................................................................... CCA.93.140 Cockatoo Coal Ltd, Re (A91338; 20 February 2013) ......................................................................... CCA.90.1220 Cockatoo Coal Ltd & Stanmore Coal Ltd, Re (A91311) ..................................................................... CCA.90.940 Cohen v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 57; [1982] ATPR 40-289 ............................ ACL.18.400 Coleman v Gordon M Jenkins & Assocs Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-960 .................... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1880, ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd v FKP Ltd [2008] FCA 1915 ................................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; 118 ALR 248; 27 IPR 561 .............. CCA.86.600 Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd v Smithkline Beecham Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-579 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1620 Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd (1990) 97 ALR 460; 19 IPR 44; [1990] AIPC 90-724 ...................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.760 Collings Construction Co Pty Ltd v ACCC (1998) 43 NSWLR 131; 143 FLR 308; 152 ALR 510 ..................................................................................................... ACL.236.260, ACL.243.180, CCA.87.160 Collins Debden Pty Ltd v Cumberland Stationery Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 1398 ............... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1420 Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd v Henjo Investments Pty Ltd (1987) 72 ALR 601; [1987] ATPR 40-782; [1987] ASC 55-576 ............................................................................ ACL.18.80, ACL.18.1940 Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd v Henjo Investments Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 556 ...................................... ACL.18.580 Comalco Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-142 ..................................................................................... CCA.90.940 Comalco Ltd, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-277 ..................................................................................... CCA.90.940 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Powell [2015] FCA 1110 .......... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.80 Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 ................................................................................................... CCA.46.60, CCA.46.520, CCA.46.640 Commercial Bank of Aust Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 ............................................................ ACL.20.60 Commercial Bank of Aust Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; 57 ALJR 358; 46 ALR 402 ............ ACL.20.20, ACL.20.120 Commercial Dynamics Pty Ltd v M Hawke Nominees Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-503 ..................... ACL.18.2400 Commodore Business Machines Pty Ltd v TPC (1990) 92 ALR 563 ................................................... CCA.80.40 Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; 66 ALJR 123; 104 ALR 1 ......... ACL.236.400, CCA.82.240 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 90 ALJR 113; 255 IR 87; 326 ALR 476 ............ ACL.163.40, CCA.76.20, CCA.76.220, CCA.76.400

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xlix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Commonwealth v Griffiths [2007] NSWCA 370; (2007) 70 NSWLR 268; 245 ALR 172 .................. ACL.18.60, CCA.2A.160 Commonwealth v Leahy Petroleum – Retail Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1422; (2005) 55 ACSR 353; 23 ACLC 1985 .......................................................................................................................... CCA.76.480 Commonwealth Bank of Aust v Groves [2012] SASC 110 ................................................................ ACL.18.1300 Commonwealth Bank of Aust v Kojic [2016] FCAFC 186 ....................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340, CCA.84.180 Commonwealth Bank of Aust v Mehta (1991) 23 NSWLR 84; [1991] ATPR 41-103; [1991] ASC 56-053; [1991] Aust Torts Reports 80-284 ........ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1540, ACL.236.60 Commonwealth Bank of Aust v White [1999] VSC 262; [1999] 2 VR 681 ........................................... CCA.5.60 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-088 ........................ CCA.90.1020 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Aust v ACCC [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] ATPR 42-177 ............................................ CCA.45E.60, CCA.45E.100, CCA.45.80, CCA.76.160 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Aust v Corke Instrument Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 799; (2005) 223 ALR 480 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.45E.60 Como Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-550 ...................... ACL.236.40 Compaq Computer Aust Pty Ltd v Merry [1998] FCA 968; (1998) 157 ALR 1 ......... ACL.224.100, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120 Compensation Fund v Tambree (t/as R Tambree & Assocs) [2005] HCA 69; (2006) 80 ALJR 183 ......................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1840 Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767 .................................................. CCA.80.640 ConAgra Inc v McCains Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302; [1992] FCA 159 ..................... ACL.18.260, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1100 Concrete Carters Assn (Vic), Re (1977) 31 FLR 193 ........ CCA.45.260, CCA.88.220, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.560, CCA.102.80 Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193; [1990] HCA 17 ........................................................................................ ACL.18.240, ACL.18.1460 Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193 ........ ACL.18.20, ACL.18.60, ACL.18.580, ACL.236.340, CCA.4K.20, CCA.4.540, CCA.80.100 Concrete Constructions Group v Litevale Pty Ltd (2002) 170 FLR 290; [2002] NSWSC 670 ........ ACL.18.400, ACL.18.580 Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union of Aust (1987) 15 FCR 31; 18 IR 68; 71 ALR 501; [1987] ATPR 40-766 ..................................... CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Connolly Brothers Ltd, Re (1911) 1 Ch 731 ......................................................................................... CCA.80.200 Consolo Ltd v Bennett [2012] FCAFC 120 .................................................................... ACL.18.400, CCA.84.120 Constantine v TPC [1994] FCA 889; (1994) 48 FCR 141; 120 ALR 341; [1994] ATPR 41-291 ..................................................................................................................... CCA.155.360, CCA.155.380 Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy, Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland, Re (A91103; 26 March 2009) ................................................................................................................ CCA.90.760 Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board v Odco Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 590; 11 IPR 577; [1988] ATPR 40-886 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.1140 Construction Material Producers Assn Inc, Re (A91047; 29 August 2007) ...................................... CCA.90.1280 Consumer Protection v Armstrong, Commissioner for [2012] WASC 206 .......................................... ACL.218.40 Cook v Pasminco Ltd [2000] FCA 677; (2000) 99 FCR 548; [2000] ATPR 41-767 .... ACL.29.60, ACL.107.60, ACL.118.60, ACL.131.80, ACL.136.40, ACL.138.120, ACL.141.40, CCA.4.520 Cool & Sons Pty Ltd v O’Brien Glass Industries Ltd (1981) 35 ALR 445; [1981] ATPR 40-220 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.98.100 Cool & Sons Pty Ltd v O’Brien Glass Industries Ltd (No 2) (1981) 40 ALR 88; 1 TPR 160 .......... CCA.80.260 Cope Allman (Aust) Ltd v Ainsworth (1983) 65 FLR 414; 5 TPR 5; [1983] ATPR 40-347 ............. CCA.50.720 Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1745 ............................................................. ACL.18.60, ACL.20.460 Copyright Agency Ltd, Re (A91285; 24 May 2012) .......................................................................... CCA.90.1000

l

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Cornwell Quality Tools Co v CTS Co (1971) 446 F 2d 825; [1971] Trade Cases 73,620 ................ CCA.46.560 Corp of the City of Adelaide v Adelaide City Fines Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 132 ................................. ACL.18.1800 Corporate Affairs (WA), Commissioner for v Ekamper (1987) 12 ACLR 519 ................................... ACL.248.20 Corrections Corp of Aust Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1280; (2000) 104 FCR 448; [2000] ATPR 41-787 ................................................................... CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.160, CCA.2C.100 Corrimal Holdings Pty Ltd v Lissadel Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 213; [2003] ATPR 41-928 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.86A.40 Cortis Exhaust Systems Pty Ltd v Kitten Software Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1189; [2001] ATPR 41-837 ...................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.1780 Costa Vraca v Bell Regal Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 65 .............. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1560, CCA.5.20, CCA.138.60 Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 693; (1998) 155 ALR 714; [1999] ATPR 41-694 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.380 Council of Camden, Re (A90886; 16 December 2004) ...................................................................... CCA.90.1060 Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 568; (2004) 62 IPR 274; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-253 ........................................................................................................... CCA.4M.20 Country Road Clothing Pty Ltd v Najee Nominees Pty Ltd (1991) 20 IPR 419; [1991] ATPR 41-106; [1991] ASC 56-050 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.700 Country Television Services Ltd, Re (1984) 73 FLR 68; [1985] ATPR 40-515 ....... CCA.102.200, CCA.103.180 Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (No 5) [2004] FCA 1406; 212 ALR 311 ................................................. CCA.86.360 Crago v Multiquip Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-620 ......................................... ACL.3.60, ACL.18.280, ACL.55.140 Cream v Bushcolt Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 100; [2002] ATPR 41-888 ................................................. CCA.51.200 Creative’s Landscape Design Centre Pty Ltd v Platz [1989] ATPR 40-980 .............. ACL.18.1940, ACL.243.60, CCA.84.80, CCA.87.300 Credit Tribunal (SA), Re; Ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corp [1977] HCA 34; (1977) 137 CLR 545; 51 ALJR 612; 14 ALR 257 ....................................................................... CCA.131C.20 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 ........................................................................ CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600 Crisp v ANZ Bank [1994] ATPR 41-294 ........................ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1300, ACL.21.220, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180, CCA.87.300 Crocodile Marketing Ltd v Griffith Vintners Pty Ltd (1989) 28 NSWLR 539; 91 ALR 273; 16 IPR 222; [1990] ATPR 41-000; [1990] ASC 55-956 ................ ACL.18.1560, ACL.29.340, ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140, CCA.76.120 Crossan v Commons [1985] ATPR 40-542; [1984] ASC 55-384 ........................................................... ACL.37.40 Crouch v Shields [1984] ATPR 40-481 ................................................................................................. CCA.51.200 Cryeng Pty Ltd v Loyola [2011] FCA 956 ................................................................. ACL.18.1360, ACL.236.540 Cummings v Lewis (1993) 41 FCR 559; 113 ALR 285; [1993] ATPR (Digest) 46-103 .... ACL.4.60, ACL.4.80, ACL.4.200, CCA.4J.20 Cummings v Lewis [1993] FCA 149 ....................................................................................................... ACL.4.180 Cunningham v National Aust Bank Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 495; 77 ALR 632; [1987] ATPR 40-826 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1300 Cunningham v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd [2012] FCA 1088 ........................................................... ACL.18.1840 Cuscal Ltd, Re (A91450; 3 December 2014) ........................................................................................ CCA.90.700 Customglass Boats Ltd v Salthouse Bros Ltd [1976] 1 NZLR 36; [1976] RPC 589 ........................ CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Cytel Pty Ltd v Mastech Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1464 ................................ CCA.86A.20, CCA.86A.40

D D’Anastasi v Environment, Climate Change & Water NSW [2011] NSWCA 374; (2011) 81 NSWLR 82 ...................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.140 DEI Queensland Pipeline Pty Ltd v ACCC [2002] ACompT 2; (2002) 167 FLR 353; [2002] ATPR 41-876 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.44M.60 Dairy Farmers Milk Co-operative Ltd and Dairy Farmers Pty Ltd, Re (A19364; 3 July 2013) ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.90.1140

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

li

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Dairy Industry Marketing Authority v Southern Farmers Co-op Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 174; 1 TPR 64; 39 ALR 613; [1982] ATPR 40-274 ................................................................................. ACL.18.1060 Dairy Vale Metro Co-operative Ltd v Browne’s Dairy Pty Ltd (1981) 54 FLR 243; 35 ALR 494; [1981] ATPR 40-215 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.1000 Dalton v Lawson Hill Estate Pty Ltd (2005) 66 IPR 525; [2005] FCAFC 169; [2005] ATPR 42-079 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.480 Dalton v Lawson Hill Estate Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 169; (2005) 66 IPR 525; [2005] ATPR 42-079 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1860 Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd (1982) 64 FLR 238; 2 TPR 246; 44 ALR 173; [1982] ATPR 40-315 ....................... CCA.45.280, CCA.47.140, CCA.47.520, CCA.93.20, CCA.151AJ.100, MG.3.40, MG.4.100 Daniels Corp International Pty Ltd v ACCC [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 213 CLR 543; 77 ALJR 40; 192 ALR 561; 43 ACSR 189 ............... CCA.155.60, CCA.155.100, CCA.155.260, CCA.155.320, CCA.155.520 Dart Industries Inc v Dér Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101 ..................................... ACL.243.100, CCA.87.340 Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1388; [2007] ATPR 42-134; (2006) 236 ALR 322 ................................................................................................ CCA.86.360 Darwin Bakery Pty Ltd v Sully (1981) 51 FLR 90; 36 ALR 371; [1981] ATPR 40-230 .................... ACL.29.80, ACL.29.300 Davenport v TPC (1983) 70 FLR 123; 47 ALR 505; 5 TPR 285; [1983] ATPR 40-354 ................. CCA.155.120 David Jones Ltd, Re (A91113; 18 February 2009) ............................................................................. CCA.90.1240 Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304 ... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.280, CCA.4E.320, CCA.4E.340, CCA.50.60, CCA.80.660 Davids Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-224 .............................................................. CCA.90.1100, CCA.95AT.60 Davidson v Watson (1953) 28 ALJ 63 ..................................................................................................... ACL.29.80 Dawson v Great Central Railway (1919) 88 LJKB 1177 .............................................. CCA.137H.20, CCA.83.40 Dawson v Motor Tyre Service Pty Ltd [1981] ATPR 40-223 .................. ACL.29.320, ACL.29.520, ACL.151.40 Dawson v World Travel Headquarters Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 455; [1981] ATPR 40-187; [1981] TPRS 314.85 ..................................................................................................... ACL.36.60, CCA.79.160 Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 1029 ............................ CCA.86.360 De Bortoli Wines Pty Ltd v HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 645; (2011) 200 FCR 253; 84 ACSR 527 .................................................................................................... ACL.18.1440, ACL.236.60 De Bortoli Wines Pty Ltd v HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCAFC 28 ............... ACL.18.1440, ACL.236.60 DeLuxe Red & Yellow Cabs Co-op Trading Soc Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-143 .................. CCA.90.1400 Deane v Brian Hickey Invention Research Pty Ltd (1988) 11 IPR 651; [1988] ATPR 40-889; [1988] ASC 55-676 ............................................................. ACL.18.1640, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180 Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd and Santos Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-072 ....................................... CCA.90.1220 Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd and Santos Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-076 ....................................... CCA.90.1020 Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31; 110 ALR 608; [1993] ATPR 41-203 ............. ACL.18.120, ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1860, ACL.237.20, ACL.237.140, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180, CCA.4K.20, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.360 Denpro Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1983) 72 FLR 156; 48 ALR 39; [1983] ATPR 40-363 ....................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.80 Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 32; 65 ALJR 262; 99 ALR 275; [1991] ATPR 41-098 ....................................................................... CCA.4G.20, CCA.45D.120, CCA.44ZZ.20 Dib Group Pty Ltd v Ventouris Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 300 .................... ACL.4.180, ACL.18.1580 Dibble v Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-693 ................................................................... ACL.243.180 Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50; [1913] HCA 77 .................................................................. CCA.86.120 Dickson v Gallagher [1985] ATPR 40-550; [1985] ASC 55-410 ........................................................... CCA.6.120 Diethelm Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1993) 44 FCR 450 .............................. ACL.3.60 Digi-Tech (Aust) Ltd v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58; (2004) 62 IPR 184; [2004] ATPR 46-248; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-196 .................................................... ACL.4.60, ACL.4.220, ACL.236.40

lii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Dillon v Baltic Shipping Co (1989) 21 NSWLR 614; (1990) ATPR 40-992; (1989) ASC 55-949 .......................................................................................................................... ACL.18.600, ACL.243.60 Dillon v Charter Travel Co Ltd (1989) 92 ALR 331 ...................................................... ACL.18.600, ACL.243.60 Dillon v Chin; Dillon v Kingly Commodities (Qld) Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-899 ............................ ACL.29.440 Dingjan, Re; Ex parte Wagner [1995] HCA 16; (1995) 183 CLR 323 .................................................. ACL.45.60 Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52; [2002] 1 AC 481; [2002] 1 All ER 97; [2001] 3 WLR 1297 .... ACL.23.180, ACL.24.20, ACL.24.40, ACL.24.60, ACL.24.120 Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd [1995] 1 AC 456 ............................. CCA.84.120 Director of Consumer Affairs v AAPT Ltd [2006] VCAT 1493 ...................................... ACL.23.60, ACL.23.180 Director of Consumer Affairs v Nightingale Electrics Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 279 ...... ACL.118.100, ACL.232.140 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Alpha Flight Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1434 ............. ACL.118.100 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Alpha Flight Services Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 118 ......... ACL.118.100, ACL.224.220 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Backloads.com Pty Ltd [2009] VCAT 754 ......................... ACL.23.180 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1371; (2013) 308 ALR 296; [2013] ATPR 42-457 ...................... ACL.107.140, ACL.224.200, ACL.224.220, ACL.248.20, ACL.248.40 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 618; (2013) 213 FCR 559 .......................................................................................... ACL.232.40, CCA.86.40, CCA.138.40 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Donald (No 2) [2016] VSC 683 ............................................ ACL.74.40 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Palamara [2012] VSC 311 ......... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.2000, ACL.69.20 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Parking Patrols Vic Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 137 .................. ACL.18.1800, ACL.50.80 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Scully [2013] VSCA 292 ....................................................... ACL.21.60 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Scully (No 3) [2012] VSC 444 ............................................ ACL.21.340 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Scully (No 3) (2013) 96 ACSR 455; 303 ALR 168; [2013] VSCA 292 ................................................................................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.100, ACL.21.340 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Aust) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 22 ..................................................................................................... ACL.29.360, ACL.29.520 Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Trainstation Health Clubs Pty Ltd [2008] VCAT 2092 ................................................................................................................................................... ACL.23.180 Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] 2 WLR 441; AC 458; 1 NSWLR 83 ................ CCA.5.20, CCA.5.180 Diversified Mineral Resources NL v CRA Exploration Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-381 ....................... ACL.18.380 Dodds Family Investment Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 ............................ ACL.18.2120 Doherty v Traveland Pty Ltd (1982) 2 TPR 419; [1982] ATPR 40-323 ................................................ ACL.34.60 Domain Names Aust Pty Ltd v au Domain Administration Ltd [2004] FCAFC 247; (2004) 139 FCR 215 ............................................................................................................ CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471; 110 ALR 535; [1992] ATPR 41-198 ................................................................................. ACL.236.40, ACL.236.80 Donald Financial Enterprises Pty Ltd v APIR Systems Ltd [2008] FCA 1112; (2008) ACSR 219 ................................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1960 Doolan v Air New Zealand Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-082 .......................................................................... ACL.29.280 Doolan v Waltons Ltd (No 1) (1981) 39 ALR 408; 1 TPR 108; [2011] FCA 761 ...... ACL.29.180, ACL.207.20, ACL.208.40 Dowling v Dalgety Aust Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165 ............. ACL.24.40, CCA.4A.60, CCA.4E.340, CCA.4.320, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.120, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.540, CCA.46.140, CCA.46.160, CCA.46.200, CCA.46.220, CCA.46.280, CCA.46.460, CCA.47.380, CCA.50.320, CCA.151AJ.60 Downey v Carlson Hotels Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 199 ............ ACL.18.40, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1860, ACL.29.160, CCA.76.140, CCA.84.120 Dr Martens Aust Pty Ltd v Rivers (Aust) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1655; (1999) 95 FCR 136; 47 IPR 499; [2000] ATPR 41-734 ....................................................... ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2200

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

liii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Dr Martens Aust Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 602 ................................. CCA.86.600 Dr Miles Medical Co v John D Park & Sons Co 220 US 373 (1911) .................................................. CCA.48.60 Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 169; [2004] ATPR 42-013 ... ACL.18.60, CCA.4.540, CCA.87B.240, CCA.138.80 Du Pont (Aust) Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-231 ......................................................................... CCA.90.1020 Ducret v Chaudhary’s Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 562; 30 A Crim R 42; 76 ALR 183; [1987] ATPR 40-804; [1987] ASC 55-608 ................................................................ ACL.29.180 Ducret v Colourshot Pty Ltd (1981) 35 ALR 503; [1981] TPRS 314.115; [1981] ATPR 40-196 ........................................................................... ACL.214.20, ACL.224.200, CCA.76.600, CCA.79.500 Ducret v Nissan Motor Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (1979) 38 FLR 126; [1979] ATPR 40-111 ...................... CCA.79.160 Dudgeon Point Coal Export Terminal Producers, Re (A91277 & A91278) ........................................ CCA.90.940 Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Ltd, Re [2001] ACompT 3; [2001] ATPR 41-827 ................................. CCA.102.280 Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd, Re [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821 ......................................... CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.180, CCA.44G.220, CCA.44M.60 Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 377 ............................................................ ACL.18.1900 Dunlop Olympic Ltd v TPC (1982) 62 FLR 145; 1 TPR 223; 40 ALR 367; [1982] ATPR 40-278 ..................................................................................................................... CCA.155.160, CCA.155.220 Dunn v Aust Society of CPAs [1996] ATPR 41-461 ................................................... ACL.18.1840, CCA.4D.200 Duracell Aust Pty Ltd v Union Carbide Aust Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-918 ....................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760 Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd v Polaris Communications Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 135 ........................... ACL.18.600

E E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 31 FCR 299; 105 ALR 53; [1992] ATPR 41-156 .................... CCA.4.340, CCA.4.500, CCA.82.160 E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 27 FCR 310; 99 ALR 601; [2002] ATPR 41-085 ................ ACL.3.60, CCA.2B.80, CCA.2B.200, CCA.4.540, CCA.4.560 E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 31 FCR 299; 105 ALR 53; [1992] ATPR 41-156 .............. ACL.2.120, ACL.54.160, ACL.236.220 EBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1768 ...................... ACL.18.1520 EFTPOS Interchange Fees Agreement, Re [2004] ACompT 7; [2004] ASC 155-068; [2004] ATPR 41-999 ............................................................. CCA.90.120, CCA.90.700, CCA.102.160, CCA.102.180 EMI Records (Aust) Ltd, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-096 ........................................ CCA.90.1080, CCA.90.1280 EPA v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477; 68 ALJR 127; 82 LGERA 51; 118 ALR 392; 12 ACSR 452 ................................................................................................................... CCA.77.100 ERx Script Exchange Pty Ltd, Re (A91348; 7 March 2013) ............................................................... CCA.90.860 East Australian Pipeline Ltd, Re [2004] ACompT 8; [2004] ATPR 42-006 ............... CCA.44V.60, CCA.44ZP.80 East Australian Pipeline Marketing Pty Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-263 ............ CCA.90.840, CCA.90.1220 Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128 .................................. CCA.4D.80, CCA.45.20, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.320, CCA.46.140 Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167 ......... CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.80, CCA.46.120, CCA.46.200, CCA.46.280, CCA.46.640, CCA.46.660 Eastman Kodak Co v Image Technical Services Inc 504 US 451 (1992) ........................................... CCA.46.700 Eatten’s Pty Ltd v JLW (NSW) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-619 .......................................................... ACL.18.1900 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337; 63 ALD 577; 75 ALJR 277; 176 ALR 644 .............................................................................................................. CCA.37.40 Edgar v Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR (Digest) 46-096; [1992] ASC 56-186 .................................................................................................................................................. ACL.4.140 Edwards, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-094 ............................................................................................. CCA.90.360 Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] NSWCA 332; [2004] ATPR 42-034; [2005] ASAL 55-137 .............. ACL.54.60, ACL.54.80, ACL.54.100, ACL.54.160, ACL.60.40, ACL.142.80, ACL.142.100 Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 15; (1999) 161 ALR 599; [1999] ATPR 41-686 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.1560, ACL.236.60

liv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Eighth SRJ Pty Ltd v Merity (1997) 7 BPR 15,189 ........................................................ ACL.18.220, CCA.4.540 Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v EG Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 193; [1978] ATPR (Digest) 46-030 ......................................................................................................... ACL.18.340, ACL.18.1860 Electric Lamp Manufacturers (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re (1982) 1 TPR 185 ................................................ CCA.90.1020 Electric Lamp Manufacturers (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-240 ................................ CCA.90.1020 Electric Lamp Manufacturers (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-243 ................................ CCA.90.1020 Electricity Supply Assn of Aust Ltd v ACCC [2001] FCA 1296; (2001) 113 FCR 230; 68 ALD 107; [2001] ATPR 41-838 ....................................................................................................... CCA.28.160 Elsley v J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 916 ........................................................ CCA.4M.20 Emanuele v Chamber of Commerce and Industry [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-121 ....... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.220 Emap Elan Ltd v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-551 ................................................ ACL.18.2400 Emirates v ACCC [2009] FCA 312; (2009) 255 ALR 35 .................................................................... CCA.4E.160 Emrik Sporting Goods Pty Ltd v Stellar International Sporting Goods Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 319; [1981] ATPR 40-217 ........................................................................................................ ACL.18.920 Endocoal Ltd, Re (A91350; 14 March 2013) ...................................................................................... CCA.90.1220 Endormer Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd [2000] FCA 1669 .............................................. ACL.20.300 Energex Ltd v Alstom Aust Ltd [2005] FCAFC 215; (2005) 225 ALR 504; [2005] ATPR 42-086 ................................................................................................. ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160, CCA.86.140 Energizer Aust Pty Ltd v Remington Products Aust Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 58 .............. ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760, ACL.18.860 Energy Assured Ltd, Re (A91258; 23 June 2011 ......................................................... CCA.90.880, CCA.90.1240 Energy Assured Ltd (A91391 13 May 2015) ....................................................................................... CCA.91B.20 Energy Drilling Inc v Petroz NL [1989] ATPR 40-954 ........................................................................ CCA.86.560 Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1998] 2 AC 22 ....................................... ACL.236.40 Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477; 68 ALJR 127; 118 ALR 392 ................................................................................................................ CCA.155.260 Environmental Agency v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1998] UKHL 5; [1999] 2 AC 22 ....................................................................................................................................................... ACL.236.40 Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 4 FCR 450; 57 ALR 167; 3 IPR 619; [1985] ATPR 40-507 .............................................................. ACL.18.2320, ACL.236.160, CCA.82.120, CCA.82.140 Epitoma Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1984) 3 FCR 55; 54 ALR 730; [1984] ATPR 40-478 .................................................................................................... CCA.45D.100 Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1989) 16 IPR 431; [1990] ATPR 40-994 .......... ACL.18.2120, CCA.86.560 Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [1990] ATPR 40-994; (1989) 16 IPR 431 .............. ACL.18.20, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2260 Eric Preston Pty Ltd v Euroz Securities Ltd (2011) 274 ALR 705; [2011] FCAFC 11; [2012] ALMD 1951 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.1540, ACL.236.60 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1967] UKHL 1; [1968] AC 269 ........... CCA.4M.20 Etihad Airways, Re (A91468 6 November 2015) ............................................................................... CCA.90.1400 European Night Services Ltd v Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer Case T3864/94 15/9/98 ......................................................................................................................................... CCA.PTIIIA.60 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] 1 ECR 215; [1973] CMLR 199 .......... CCA.46.160 Eva v Mazda Motors (Sales) Pty Ltd [1977] ATPR 40-020 ................................................................. CCA.79.160 Eva v Preston Motors Pty Ltd [1977] ATPR 40-048 .............................................................................. CCA.84.80 Eva v Southern Motors Box Hill Pty Ltd (1977) 30 FLR 213; 15 ALR 428; [1977] ATPR 40-026 ................................................... ACL.226.20, CCA.45D.300, CCA.76.240, CCA.79.440, CCA.79.460 Eveready Aust Pty Ltd v Gillette Aust Pty Ltd (No 4) [1999] FCA 1824; [2000] ATPR 41-751; [2000] ASAL 55-042 ................................................................................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1420 Ewins v Buderim Imports Pty Ltd (1987) 76 ALR 157; 11 IPR 327; [1987] ATPR 40-825; [1987] ASC 55-616 .......................................................................................................................... CCA.86A.40 Expedia/Wotif (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 13 January 2015) ......................................... CCA.50.160

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

F F Sharkey and Co Pty Ltd v Fisher (1980) 50 FLR 130; 33 ALR 173; [1980] ATPR 40-185 ........... CCA.2B.20 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v RAIA Insurance Brokers Ltd (1992) 108 ALR 479; 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-118; [1992] ATPR 41-176 ...................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1680, ACL.236.160, CCA.163A.40 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Workcover Corp of SA [1998] ATPR 41-639 ................................ CCA.2C.100 Fabcot Pty Ltd v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2011] NSWCA 167 ........................................... ACL.18.500 Facton Ltd v Toast Sales Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 612 ................................................................. ACL.18.2160 Fairbairn v NCC Fashions Wholesale Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1874 ........................................................ CCA.48.240 Fairfax Media Ltd/Southern Independent Publishers Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 May 2011) .................................................................................................................. CCA.50.300 Famel Pty Ltd v Burswood Management Ltd (1989) 15 ACLR 572; [1989] ATPR 40-962 ........... ACL.236.240, CCA.82.180, CCA.86.560 Farah (Aust) Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW) (No 1) [1997] ATPR 41-583 ........... CCA.45DB.100 Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380 ............................................................................................ ACL.18.680 Fasold v Roberts (1997) 70 FCR 489; 145 ALR 548; 38 IPR 34; [1997] ATPR 41-561; [1997] AIPC 91-327 ................................................................................. ACL.18.60, ACL.18.240, CCA.4.100 Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Re (A90123; 6 June 2007) ........................................... CCA.90.1280 Federation of Australian Accountants Inc v Australian Society of Accountants [1988] ATPR 46-044 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1840 Federation of Australian Underwater Instructors, Re [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-055 ............................. CCA.90.660 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; 57 ALJR 317; 15 TPR 171; 46 ALR 41; [1983] ATPR 40-350 ..................... ACL.224.100, ACL.224.120, CCA.75B.40, CCA.4.560, CCA.76.80, CCA.82.20, CCA.84.20 Fenech v Sterling (1983) 79 FLR 244; 51 ALR 205; [1983] ATPR 40-413 ........... ACL.236.220, CCA.137H.20, CCA.82.160, CCA.83.40 Fernandez v Glev Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1859 .............................................................. ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140 Fernwood Fitness Centre Pty Ltd v Today’s Woman Health & Fitness Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 78; [1998] ATPR 41-637 ......................................................................................................... ACL.18.1580 Ferraro v DBN Holdings Aust Pty Ltd t/as Sports Auto Group [2015] FCA 1127 ...... ACL.259.40, ACL.262.40 Festival Industries Pty Ltd v Mikasa (NSW) Pty Ltd (1971) 18 FLR 260 ................... CCA.96.220, CCA.96.260 Festival Records Pty Ltd v International Direct Marketing Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-664 ............... ACL.18.1520 Fido Dido Inc v Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty Ltd (1988) 16 IPR 365; [1988] ATPR 40-912 ......... ACL.18.740 Fielding v Vagrand Pty Ltd (in liq) (1992) 39 FCR 251; 111 ALR 368; 9 ACSR 505; 11 ACLC 172 ................................................................................................................. ACL.237.240, CCA.87.480 Finger v Malua Motors Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-061 ........................................................................... CCA.84.80 Finishing Services Pty Ltd v Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 177 ..................... ACL.236.40, ACL.236.100 Finucane v NSW Egg Corp (1988) 80 ALR 486; [1988] ATPR 40-863 .................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1940 Fire Nymph Products Ltd v Jalco Products (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 74 FLR 102; 47 ALR 142; [1983] ATPR 40-353 ......................................................................... ACL.18.920, ACL.18.1080, ACL.18.2200 Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (2015) 90 ALJR 228; [2015] HCA 43 ......................................................................................................................................................... CCA.51.60 First East Auction Holdings Pty Ltd v Ange [2010] VSC 72 .............................................................. ACL.21.340 Fisher v GRC Services Pty Ltd (No 1) [1988] ATPR (Digest) 46-180 ............................................... CCA.51.200 Fishman v Wirtz [1986] 2 Trade Cases 67,356 ............................................................................... CCA.PTIIIA.40 Flamingo Park Pty Ltd v Dolly Dolly Creation Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 169; 59 ALR 247; [1985] AIPC 90-217 .......................................................................................................................... CCA.86.640 Flamingo Park Pty Ltd v Dolly Dolly Creation Pty Ltd (1986) 65 ALR 500 ................................... ACL.236.540 Fleetman Pty Ltd v Cairns Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 80 ................................................ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1260 Flemington Properties Pty Ltd v Raine & Horne Commercial Pty Ltd [1999] ATPR 41-670 .......... ACL.18.1840 Fletcher v Nextra Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 52 ....... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.240, ACL.18.1740, CCA.4.540

lvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC [2014] FCA 658 ......................................................................................... CCA.86.720 Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; 324 ALR 202; [2015] FCAFC 104 ....................... CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.140, CCA.4E.340 Foley v Gay [2016] FCA 273 ................................................................................................................ CCA.86.360 Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd v Viropoulos (No 3) [2015] FCA 1050 ...................................... ACL.18.400 Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd v Arrowcrest Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 313; (2003) 134 FCR 522 ............................................................................................................. ACL.18.1640, ACL.236.40 Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd, Re (1977) 32 FLR 65; [1977] ATPR 40-043 ......... CCA.45.360, CCA.103.140 Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 39 ................................. ACL.18.1440 Forster v Farquhar [1893] 1 QB 564 .............................................................................. CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61; (1972) 127 CLR 421; 46 ALJR 701; [1972-73] ALR 1303 ............................................................................................. CCA.163A.140, CCA.86.220 Fortescue Metals Group Ltd, Re [2006] ACompT 6 ............................................................................ CCA.109.20 Fortescue Metals Group Ltd, Re [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319 ....................... CCA.4E.160, CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.240, CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.180 Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones [2006] FCA 1239 ...................................................... CCA.86.60 Forwood Products Pty Ltd v Gibbett [2002] FCA 298; [2002] ATPR 41-870 ............. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1560 Foster v ACCC [2006] FCAFC 21; (2006) 149 FCR 135 ..................................................................... CCA.80.80 Four Square Stores (Qld) Ltd v ABE Copiers Pty Ltd [1981] ATPR 40-232 .......................................... ACL.3.60 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 ............................................................................. CCA.86.740 Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Video Retailers Assn Ltd [2004] FCA 1613 ................... ACL.18.1740 Franchising Code Council Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-239 ......................................................... CCA.90.740 Francis v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2002] FCA 1306 ....................... ACL.20.480 Francis C Mason Pty Ltd v Citicorp Australia Ltd (1985) 57 ALR 130; [1985] ATPR 40-509 .......... CCA.86.80 Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160; 131 FLR 442; [1996] ATPR 41-489 ............................................................................ CCA.5.180, CCA.86.300 Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452; 127 ALR 543; 15 ACSR 590; 13 ACLC 132; [1995] ATPR 41-374 ................ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1020, ACL.18.1440, ACL.18.1680, ACL.18.1940 Fraser Henleins Pty Ltd v Cody (1945) 70 CLR 100 ........................................................................... CCA.84.100 Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Magnal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 ......................... CCA.84.140 Freestone Auto Sales Pty Ltd v Musulin [2015] NSWCA 160 .......................................................... ACL.18.1760 Freight Victoria Ltd, Re [2002] ACompT 1; [2002] ATPR 41-884 ..... CCA.44K.140, CCA.103.40, CCA.103.80 Fresh Express Australia Pty Ltd v Larridren Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1312 ........................................... ACL.18.1900 Fresh Express Pty Ltd v Cerreto [2003] FCAFC 222 ......................................................................... ACL.18.1900 Frith v Gold Coast Mineral Springs Pty Ltd (1983) 65 FLR 213; 5 TPR 48; 47 ALR 547; [1983] ATPR 40-339 ................................................................................................. ACL.236.160, CCA.82.120 Fubilan Catering Services Ltd v Compass Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1205 ...... ACL.4.180, ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.20.120, ACL.20.500, ACL.21.360 Fubilan Catering Services Ltd v Compass Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 53 .... ACL.4.220, ACL.18.400 Furniture Manufacturers’ Assn of Australia, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-113 .................................... CCA.90.740 Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] 2 VR 217; [1990] ATPR 41-049; [1990] ASC 56-009 .................. ACL.4.100, ACL.4.120, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.400, ACL.18.580, ACL.243.80

G GA Nominees Pty Ltd v Barden Motors Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-519 ............................................ ACL.18.1260 GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 50; (2003) 128 FCR 1 .............................................................................................................................. CCA.2A.80 GPG (Australia Trading) Pty Ltd v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 23; 191 ALR 342; 40 ACSR 252; 20 ACLC 178; 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-517; [2001] FCA 1761 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.1680, ACL.20.60, ACL.20.500

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Gallagher v Durack (1983) 152 CLR 238; 45 ALR 53; 57 ALJR 191; 3 IR 441 ........ CCA.80.620, CCA.86.640 Gallagher v Pioneer Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd (1993) 46 IR 304; 113 ALR 159; 35 AILR 74; [1993] ATPR 41-216 ........................................................................................... CCA.4D.200, CCA.45.300 Gardam v George Wills & Co Ltd (1988) 82 ALR 415; 12 IPR 194; [1988] ATPR 40-884; [1988] ASC 55-672 ............... ACL.18.40, ACL.18.480, ACL.29.80, ACL.29.120, ACL.29.160, ACL.29.200, ACL.29.340, ACL.208.80 Gardam v Splendid Enterprises Pty Ltd (1987) 33 A Crim R 123; [1987] ATPR 40-779; [1987] ASC 55-570 ................................................................................................... ACL.107.140, CCA.79.160 Gardner v Dairy Industry Authority (NSW) (1977) 138 CLR 646 (note); 52 ALJR 180; 18 ALR 55 ......................................................................................................................................... CCA.163A.160 Garry Rogers Motors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 903; [1999] ATPR 41-703 ....................................................................................................................................... ACL.22.80 Garvey v Vamamu Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-656 ................................... ACL.18.1860, ACL.30.60, ACL.236.160 Gas Corp v Phasetwo Nominees Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-644 ........................................................... CCA.86.440 GasNet Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd, Re [2003] ACompT 6; [2004] ATPR 41-978 ................. CCA.44ZZA.60 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Soc Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1; 60 ALJR 239; 63 ALR 600; 6 IPR 462; 4 ANZ Ins Cas 60-691; [1986] ATPR 40-666 .... ACL.236.160, ACL.237.140, CCA.82.120, CCA.87.360 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1982) 68 FLR 74; 2 TPR 125; 43 ALR 313; [1982] ATPR 40-311 ........................................................................................ ACL.243.180, CCA.86.500 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 101; [1983] ATPR 40-335 ......... ACL.236.160, ACL.243.180, CCA.87.360 Geale v Glen Houn Holdings Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-615 .................................................................. ACL.37.40 Geary Nominees Pty Ltd v Pargas Nominees Pty Ltd (1986) 7 IPR 169; [1986] ATPR 40-720 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.236.240, CCA.82.180 General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 98; 117 ALR 135; [1993] ATPR 41-215 ................................................. CCA.46.420, CCA.151AJ.60 General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra (1993) 45 FCR 164; 117 ALR 629; [1993] ATPR 41-274 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.46.700 General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164; 117 ALR 629; [1993] ATPR 41-274 .................. ACL.18.220, ACL.18.380, ACL.18.500, ACL.18.2020, CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.700 Generic Medicines Industry Assn Pty Ltd, Re (A91218 & A91219; 3 November 2010) .................. CCA.90.740, CCA.90.860 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104; 64 ALJR 384; 48 A Crim R 246; 93 ALR 483 ........................................................................................ ACL.18.200, CCA.155.20, CCA.155.100 George T Collings (Aust) Pty Ltd v H F Stevenson (Aust) Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-104; [1991] ASC 56-051 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.21.340 George Weston Foods Ltd v Goodman Fielder Ltd [2000] FCA 1632; (2000) 49 IPR 553 .............. ACL.18.280, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1560 George Weston/Good Stuff Bakery (ACCC Competition Assessment, 16 March 2007) .................... CCA.50.220 Georges River Council, Re (A91530) .................................................................................................. CCA.90.1060 Geraghty v Minter (1979) 142 CLR 177; 53 ALJR 638; 26 ALR 141 ............................................... CCA.51.200 Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543 .............................................................. ACL.236.180 Gibson Motor Sport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes [2005] FCA 749 .................... CCA.4J.20, CCA.44ZZRO.20 Gillette Aust Pty Ltd v Energizer Aust Pty Ltd (2002) 193 ALR 629; 56 IPR 13; [2002] FCAFC 223; [2002] ATPR 41-887; [2002] ASAL 55-088 ................ ACL.18.700, ACL.18.720, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1420 Gillette Aust Pty Ltd v Energizer Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1647 ................................ ACL.18.220, ACL.18.700 Gilmour v Bannister Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 308; 1 TPR 412; [1982] ATPR 40-296 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.163.60, CCA.163.80 Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 36; 3 A Crim R 196; 33 ALR 605; [1980] ATPR 40-201 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.163.80 Gilsan (International) Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1077 ...................................... ACL.21.360

lviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; 59 ALJR 461; 58 ALR 641; 16 A Crim R 163; 2 MVR 97; 4 IPR 97 ............................................ ACL.224.100, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120, CCA.79.180 Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [1998] FCA 1560; [1998] ATPR 41-669 ...... CCA.4.540, CCA.28.140 Given v CV Holland (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 212; 15 ALR 439; [1977] ATPR 40-029 ........................................................... ACL.29.80, ACL.29.100, ACL.29.180, ACL.29.300, CCA.84.60 Given v Pryor (1979) 39 FLR 437; 24 ALR 442; [1979] ATPR 40-109 ............................................. ACL.29.100 Gladstone Ports Corp Ltd, Re (A91209; 21 April 2010) ..................... CCA.90.940, CCA.90.1180, CCA.90.1220 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Pharmacor Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1202 ........................................ CCA.4.540 Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd v ACCC (1998) 90 FCR 40; [1998] ASAL 55-021; [1999] ATPR 41-672 ............................................................ ACL.9.20, ACL.9.120, ACL.29.440, ACL.138.40 Global One Mobile Entertainment Pty Ltd v ACCC [2012] FCAFC 134; [2012] ATPR 42-419 ................................ ACL.18.20, ACL.18.100, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.480 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82; 55 ALR 25; [1984] ATPR 40-463 ...................... ACL.4.100, ACL.18.140, ACL.18.160, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.400, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1040, ACL.18.1180, ACL.19.20 Glorie v WA Chip & Pulp Co Pty Ltd (1981) 55 FLR 310; 39 ALR 67; 1 TPR 84 ....................... ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540 Glueck v Stang [2008] FCA 148; (2008) 75 IPR 75; [2008] ATPR 42-220 ......................................... CCA.4.540 Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd [2013] NSWSC 281 ....................... ACL.18.60, CCA.4.500, CCA.4.540 Golden West Refining Corp Ltd v Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-378 ......................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1640 Gollel Holdings Pty Ltd v Kenneth Maurer Funerals Pty Ltd (1987) 9 IPR 109 (Einfield J); ............. ACL.18.80 Gollel Holdings Pty Ltd v Kenneth Maurer Funerals Pty Ltd (1987) 9 IPR 109; [1987] ATPR 40-790; [1987] ASC 55-584 .......................................................................... ACL.18.2460, CCA.80.540 Good v Kennan [1990] ATPR 41-039; [1990] ASC 55-985 ................................................................... ACL.43.40 Google Inc v ACCC (2013) 249 CLR 435; 87 ALJR 235; 294 ALR 404; [2013] HCA 1 ............... ACL.18.840, ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.1740, ACL.29.20 Google Inc v ACCC (2013) 87 ALJR 235; [2013] HCA 1 .................................................................. ACL.18.480 Gordon M Jenkins & Assocs Pty Ltd v Coleman (1989) 23 FCR 38; 87 ALR 477; [1989] ATPR 40-974 .................................................................................... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1880, ACL.236.160 Goulburn Valley Housing Loans Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-118 ............................................... CCA.90.980 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215; 62 ALR 527; 60 ALJR 49 ... ACL.236.40, ACL.236.440, CCA.82.100, CCA.82.260 Government Insurance Office (NSW) v Cox (1976) 50 ALJR 559; 9 ALR 194 ........ ACL.236.400, CCA.82.240 Graeme Webb Investments Pty Ltd v St George Partnership Banking Ltd [2001] NSWCA 93; (2001) 38 ACSR 282 .................................................................................................................. CCA.84.120 Graham v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1988] ATPR 40-908; [1989] ANZ ConvR 1 ............ ACL.18.1300 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2000] FCA 1099; (2000) 102 FCR 307; 109 LGERA 1; 177 ALR 18; [2000] ATPR (Digest) 46-207; [2000] ASAL 55-050 ... ACL.138.120, ACL.142.60 Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 ....................................................... CCA.86.220 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 ............................................................................. ACL.55.20 Graphic Products Distributors Inc v Itek Corp (1983) 717 F 2d 1560; [1983-2] Trade Cases 65,670 .......................................................................................................................... CCA.46.560, CCA.47.260 Gray v Latter [2014] NSWSC 122 .......................................................................................................... ACL.18.60 Gray v Sirtex Medical Ltd [2011] FCAFC 40 .................................................................................... ACL.236.420 Great Australian Bite Pty Ltd v Menmel Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-506 ................... ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1840 Greco v Bendigo Machinery Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-521 ................................................................. ACL.18.180 Green v Ford [1985] ATPR 40-603; [1985] ASC 55-430 ................................................ ACL.29.120, CCA.6.120 Gregg v Tasmanian Trustees Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 91; 143 ALR 328; [1997] ATPR 41-567 .............. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1300, ACL.20.180, ACL.20.300, CCA.84.160, CCA.87.220 Greynell Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter Douglas Ltd (1979) 4 TPR 173 .................... CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440, CCA.103.160

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Guglielman v Trescowthick [2004] FCA 326; [2004] ATPR 41-995 ................................................... CCA.138.80 Guide Dog Owners’ & Friends’ Assn v Guide Dog Assn of NSW & ACT (1998) 42 IPR 481; [1998] ATPR 41-645 ...................................................................................... ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2460 Gull Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd v Povey Corp Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-842 ............................................ ACL.18.1540 Gunns Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sithiravel [2016] NSWSC 1543 ...................................................... ACL.278.20 Gurdag v BS Stillwell Ford Pty Ltd (1985) 8 FCR 526; 61 ALR 689; [1985] ATPR 40-606 ......... ACL.18.1260 Gurr & Gurr v Forbes [1996] ATPR 41-491 ................................................................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1940 Guthrie v Doyle Dane & Bernbach Pty Ltd [1977] FCA 13; (1977) 30 FLR 116; 16 ALR 241; [1977] ATPR 40-037 ..... ACL.2.140, ACL.18.880, ACL.29.300, ACL.29.480, ACL.208.80, CCA.4.420 Guthrie v Universal Telecasters (Qld) Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 247; [1977] ATPR 40-038 ..................... ACL.29.320, ACL.151.40

H H J Heinz Company Australia Ltd/Rafferty’s Garden Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 26 July 2013) ................................................................................................................ CCA.50.300 HCF Australia Ltd v Switzerland Australia Health Fund Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-834; [1988] ASC 55-626 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.247.20 HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydo-Electric Corp [1999] FCA 822; [1999] ATPR (Digest) 46-196 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.20.500 HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640; 79 ALJR 190; 211 ALR 79; [2004] HCA 54; [2004] ATPR 42-030 ................ ACL.4.120, ACL.18.600, ACL.236.160, CCA.82.120 HW Thompson Building Pty Ltd v Allen Property Services Pty Ltd (1983) 77 FLR 254; 48 ALR 667; 5 TPR 474; [1983] ATPR 40-371; [1983] ASC 55-260 ......................... ACL.18.420, ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1860, CCA.86.500 Habib v Commonwealth (2010) 183 FCR 62; 113 ALD 469; [2010] FCAFC 12 ............................ CCA.155.560 Halal Certification Authority Pty Ltd v Scadilone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 614 ........... ACL.18.1560, ACL.224.120, ACL.236.480 Halton Pty Ltd v Stewart Bros Drilling Contractors Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-158; [1992] ASC 56-128 .................................................................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1320 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 867; (1999) 164 ALR 203; [1999] ATPR 41-705 ........................................................... CCA.44B.100, CCA.44B.120, CCA.44B.140 Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121; 63 ALJR 80; 82 ALR 626; 14 ACLR 493; 7 ACLC 34; [1988] ATPR 40-923 ....................................................................................................... CCA.76.120 Hamlyn v Brandon [1984] ATPR 40-461; [1984] ASC 55-329 .......................................................... ACL.107.140 Hamlyn v Mark Foy’s Pty Ltd [1982] ATPR 40-316 ........................................................................... ACL.136.80 Hamlyn v Moppet Grange Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-439; [1984] ASC 55-308 ................................ ACL.107.140 Hamlyn v Norman Ross Stores Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-514; [1984] ASC 55-378 ........................ ACL.107.140 Hampic Pty Ltd v Adams [1999] NSWCA 455; [2000] ATPR 41-737 .................... ACL.PT3-5.40, ACL.18.960, ACL.234.40, ACL.236.60, CCA.138.120 Hampton v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 285 ............................................... ACL.21.340 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-658 ....................... ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1840, ACL.18.1860 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 357; (1999) 43 IPR 545; [1999] ATPR 41-687; [1999] 1 ConvR 54-528; [1999] Q ConvR 54-528 ............. ACL.18.1900, ACL.236.40, ACL.236.80 Handley v Snoid [1981] ATPR 40-219 .................................................................................................... CCA.6.120 Hanimex Pty Ltd v Kodak (A’asia) Pty Ltd (1982) 74 FLR 447; [1982] ATPR 40-287 .................... ACL.18.720 Hansen Beverage Co v Bickfords (Aust) Pty Ltd (2008) 171 FCR 579; [2008] FCAFC 181 .......... ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2280 Happy Landings Pty Ltd v Magazine Promotions Australia Pty Ltd (1984) 2 IPR 347; [1984] ATPR 40-459; [1984] ASC 55-326 ..................................................................................... ACL.18.1180 Hardcastle v Mitch Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1569 .............................................. ACL.2.160, CCA.82.160 Hardy v Your Tabs Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] NSWCA 150 ..................................................................... ACL.18.380 Harness Racing Australia Inc, Re (CB00206 ................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100

lx

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Haros v Linfox Aust Pty Ltd (2011) 209 IR 418; [2011] FCA 699; [2012] FCAFC 42 ..................... ACL.31.40, ACL.236.120 Harris v Milfull [2002] FCAFC 442; (2002) 43 ACSR 542 ........................................ ACL.236.440, CCA.82.260 Hart Productions Inc v Greater Cincinnati Convention & Visitors Bureau [1990] 2 Trade Cases 69,233 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.44G.140 Hartnell v Sharp Corp of Australia Pty Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 493; [1975] ATPR 40-003 ...................... CCA.79.160 Harvey Norman Holdings Pty Ltd v Fels [2002] FCA 13; [2002] ATPR 41-852 ........ CCA.86.380, CCA.86.680 Hawker De Havilland Ltd v Fernandes [1996] ATPR 41-479 .............................................................. CCA.4M.20 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539; 62 ALJR 240; 78 ALR 69; [1988] Aust Torts Reports 81 ................................................................................................................. ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Hawkins v Price [2004] WASCA 95 ........................................................................................................ ACL.44.40 Hawthorn Pty Ltd v State Bank of South Australia (1993) 40 FCR 137; 112 ALR 691; [1993] ATPR 41-219 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.2B.200 Haydon v Jackson [1988] ATPR 40-845 .......................... ACL.243.120, ACL.243.180, CCA.6.120, CCA.87.380 Haynes v Top Slice Deli Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR (Digest) 46-147 ............................... ACL.236.100, ACL.236.120 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; 15 A Crim R 203; 59 ALJR 620; 60 ALR 449 ..................................................................................................................................................... CCA.76.100 Health & Aged Care, Minister for v Harrington Assocs Ltd [2000] FCA 1723; (2000) 107 FCR 212 .................................................................................................. ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1680 Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 5 ........................................................... ACL.18.540 Hearn v O’Rourke [2003] FCAFC 78; (2003) 129 FCR 64; [2003] ATPR 41-931; [2003] ASAL 55-102 ........................................................................................... ACL.18.60. CCA.4.540, CCA.138.80 Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36 ........................................................................ CCA.86.120 Heating Centre Pty Ltd, The v TPC (1986) 9 FCR 153; 65 ALR 429; [1986] ATPR 40-674 .......... CCA.48.340, CCA.76.60, CCA.76.100, CCA.76.160, CCA.77.40, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.200, CCA.96.220, CCA.96.360 Hecht v Pro-Football Inc [1977] 2 Trade Cases 61,773 ........................................ CCA.PTIIIA.40, CCA.44G.140 Helco Pty Ltd v O’Haire [1990] ATPR 41-040; [1990] ASC 55-991; [1991] ANZ ConvR 8 ........... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1840 Helco Pty Ltd v O’Haire (1991) 28 FCR 230; [1991] ATPR 41-099; [1991] ASC 56-054 .............. ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1840 Helicruise Air Services Pty Ltd v Rotorway Australia Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-510 ........................ CCA.46.460 Helix Milling Co v Terminal Flour Mills Co [1975] 2 Trade Cases 60,554 ........ CCA.44G.120, CCA.PTIIIA.40 Henderson v Bowden Ford Pty Ltd (1979) 5 TPC 272; [1979] ATPR 40-129 ............ ACL.29.240, ACL.29.380, ACL.226.20, CCA.79.300 Henderson v Pioneer Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) (1980) 43 FLR 276; 29 ALR 597; [1980] ATPR 40-159 ....................................................................................................................................... CCA.4.500 Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 1) (1988) 39 FCR 546; 79 ALR 83; [1988] ATPR 40-850 ............... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.120, ACL.18.380, ACL.18.760, ACL.18.1940, ACL.234.40, ACL.243.60, CCA.87.300 Henville v Walker [1998] WASC 369 ......................................................................... ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.500 Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52; (2001) 206 CLR 459; 75 ALJR 1410; 182 ALR 37; [2001] ATPR 40-841 ..... ACL.18.1120, ACL.18.1860, ACL.234.40, ACL.236.20, ACL.236.40, ACL.236.80, ACL.236.180, CCA.82.40, ACL.236.500, ACL.243.20, CCA.82.200, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.440, CCA.137B.20 Herald & Weekly Times Ltd, Re (1978) 17 ALR 281; [1978] ATPR 40-058 ........ CCA.44K.100, CCA.44ZP.40, CCA.44ZP.60, CCA.90.1120, CCA.102.80, CCA.102.140, CCA.102.160, FMRPG.5.40 Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (on behalf of Media Council of Australia), Re (1977) 16 ALR 51 ....................................................................................................................................................... CCA.90.660 Heritage Clothing Pty Ltd v Mens Suit Warehouse Direct Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1775 ...................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1020, ACL.18.1380, ACL.236.80 Hertz Australia Pty Ltd, Re (CB00143 ............................................................................................ CCA.93AB.100 Hexion/Orica (ACCC Competition Assessment; 10 January 2007) ..................................................... CCA.50.220 Heydon v NRMA Ltd (2000) 51 NSWLR 1; [2000] NSWCA 374 ........ ACL.18.400, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.620 Hill v Tooth & Co Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-649 ..................................... ACL.18.1840, ACL.236.100, ACL.236.120

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxi

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Hodges v Webb [1920] 2 Ch 70 .............................................................................................................. ACL.50.60 Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 403; 12 IPR 225; [1988] ATPR 40-914; [1988] AIPC 90-530 ........................................................................................................... ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2360 Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, Re [2013] QSC 184 ................................................................................. CCA.90.680 Hollis v ABE Copiers Pty Ltd (1979) 53 ALJR 786; 41 FLR 141; [1979] ATPR 40-115 .............. ACL.18.2100, ACL.29.280, ACL.29.380, ACL.151.60, ACL.212.20 Hollis v Clark (1981) 40 ALR 179; [1981] TPRS 314.328 ................................................................. CCA.79.500 Homemakers South Ltd, Re (A91284; 12 April 2012) .......................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.800, CCA.90.1240 Homeworker Code Committee Inc, Re (A91252; 17 February 2011) ................................................. CCA.90.880 Honey v Australian Airlines Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 264; [1989] ATPR 40-961 ............. ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2360 Hoover (Aust) Pty Ltd v Email Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-149 ................................................................... ACL.18.700 Hoover (Aust) Pty Ltd v Email Ltd [1991] FCA 511 ........................................................................... ACL.18.760 Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; 54 ALJR 345; 29 ALR 577; 12 ATR 231 .......... CCA.2A.80, CCA.4.100, CCA.5.60 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216; 18 ALR 639; [1978] HCA 11; [1978] ATPR 40-067 .......... ACL.18.180, ACL.18.440, ACL.18.560, ACL.18.1340, ACL.18.2120, CCA.80.100, CCA.80.120, CCA.80.320 Horwitz Grahame Books Pty Ltd v Performance Publications Pty Ltd (1987) 8 IPR 25; [1987] ATPR 40-764; [1987] ASC 55-560 ....................................................................................... ACL.19.100 Hospital Benefit Fund of WA v ACCC (1997) 76 FCR 369; 50 ALD 201; 157 ALR 105; [1997] ATPR 41-569 ........ CCA.90.100, CCA.90.260, CCA.90.420, CCA.90.560, CCA.93.260, CCA.93.300 Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd [2001] FCA 1040; (2001) 110 FCR 157; [2001] ATPR 41-831 .................................................................................. CCA.4M.20, CCA.47.220 Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59; (2006) 225 CLR 553; 81 ALJR 466; 231 ALR 534 .................... CCA.4.540 Howard v National Bank of New Zealand Ltd [2002] FCA 1257; (2002) 121 FCR 366 .................. CCA.138.60 Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd, Re (1977) 28 FLR 385; [1977] ATPR 40-023 ....... CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.340, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.280, CCA.90.300, CCA.90.460, CCA.90.560 Hubbards Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 430; 1 TPR 354; 41 ALR 509; [1982] ATPR 40-295 .............................................................. CCA.137H.80, CCA.48.120, CCA.48.340, CCA.83.140 Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330; 15 ALR 241 ......................................................................................................................................................... CCA.1.20 Hudson v ACCC [1999] FCA 891 ......................................................................................................... CCA.80.620 Hughes v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 319 .................................................................................................... CCA.80.620 Hughes v WA Cricket Assn (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40-748 ................................................. CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600 Hughes v WA Cricket Assn Inc [1986] FCA 357; (1986) 19 FCR 10; 69 ALR 660; [1986] ATPR 40-736 .................................................................................................................. CCA.4.320, CCA.4.560 Hughes Motor Service Pty Ltd v Wang Computer Pty Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 346; [1978] ATPR 40-098 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.86.80 Humphrey v Collier [1946] VLR 391; ALR 444 .................................................................................. CCA.86.540 Hungier v Grace (1972) 127 CLR 210; 46 ALJR 492; [1972-73] ALR 759 ................... CCA.2A.80, CCA.4.100 Hunt Aust Pty Ltd v Davidson’s Arnhemland Safaris [1999] FCA 131 .............................................. ACL.18.600 Hunt Aust Pty Ltd v Davidson’s Arnhemland Safaris [2000] FCA 1690; 179 ALR 738 ................... ACL.18.600 Hurley v McDonalds Aust Ltd [1999] FCA 1728; [2000] ATPR 41-741 ....................... ACL.20.140, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340 Hurstville City Council, Re (A91180; 6 November 2009) .................... CCA.90.740, CCA.90.860, CCA.90.1060

I I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 383; ATPR 41-779 ........ CCA.87.220 I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 41; (2002) 210 CLR 109; 76 ALJR 1461; 192 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-894 ......... ACL.236.20, ACL.236.40, ACL.237.100, ACL.237.140, ACL.237.160, CCA.137B.20, CCA.82.40, CCA.82.100, CCA.82.200, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.80, CCA.87.100, CCA.87.160, CCA.87.360, CCA.87.440 IATA, Re (A90435; 9 November 2006) .............................................................................................. CCA.90.1400

lxii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

IBEB Pty Ltd v Duncan [2011] NSWCA 368 ..................................................................................... ACL.18.1940 IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-094 .................................. CCA.86.300 ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v TPC (1992) 38 FCR 248; 110 ALR 47; [1992] ATPR 41-185 ........................................................ ACL.232.20, CCA.80.80, CCA.80.180, CCA.80.220, CCA.80.260 ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v TPC [1992] FCA 474; (1992) 38 FCR 248 .................................. CCA.80.40 IOOF Australia Trustees (NSW) Ltd v Tantipech [1998] ATPR 41-652 ..................... ACL.18.420, ACL.18.1900 IRAF Pty Ltd v Graham [1982] 1 NSWLR 419; (1982) 59 FLR 115; 41 ALR 209; [1982] ATPR 40-281 ............................................................................................................... CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 ISentia Pty Ltd/Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 16 April 2014) ................................................................................................................................... CCA.50.300 IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1 ........................................................................ CCA.4.500 Idameno (No 123) Pty Ltd v Angel-Honnibal [2002] NSWSC 1214; [2003] ATPR 41-918 ............. ACL.20.500, ACL.21.360 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 599 ........................ ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140 Idoshore Pty Ltd v IPN Medical Centres (NSW) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1175 ...................................... ACL.18.580 Ihail Pty Ltd, Re (A91501) .................................................................................................................. CCA.90.1380 Ikin v Same & Lamborghini Tractors of Australia Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-595 ...... ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Inca Office Supplies Pty Ltd v Nashua Australia Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-095 ................................. CCA.80.100 Independent Contractors Australia, Re (2015) 292 FLR 80; [2015] ACompT 1 ................................. CCA.101.60 Indrisie v General Credits Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 582; [1985] ATPR 40-510 ............................................. CCA.86.80 Industrial Enterprises Pty Ltd v Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia [1979] ATPR 40-100 .......................................................................................................... CCA.45D.60, CCA.45D.120 Industrial Equity Ltd v North Broken Hill Holdings Ltd (1986) 9 FCR 385; 64 ALR 292; 6 IPR 317; [1986] ATPR 40-682 ......................................................................................................... ACL.18.400 Industry, Tourism & Resources, Minister for v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72; [2004] ATPR 41-993 ..................................................................... CCA.76.220, CCA.76.260, CCA.76.460 Ines v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] FCA 1608 .............................................................. ACL.18.1300 Infant Nutrition Council, Re (A91506 ............................................................................ CCA.90.860, CCA.90.880 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd, Re [1997] ATPR (Com) 50-245 .......................................................... CCA.90.1420 Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1969) 119 CLR 334; 43 ALJR 330; [1970] ALR 241 ............................................................................................................ CCA.2A.60, CCA.2B.80 Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd (2008) 73 NSWLR 653; 68 ACSR 595; [2008] NSWCA 206 ................................................ ACL.18.1440, ACL.236.60 Inland Revenue, Commissioners of v Maple & Co (Paris) Ltd [1908] AC 22 ................................. CCA.155.120 Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v DF McCloy Pty Ltd (No 1) (1991) 28 FCR 151; 100 ALR 447; [1991] ATPR 41-091 .................................................................... ACL.18.400, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.620 Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v McCloy Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 28 FCR 172 ............ CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600 Insight Radiology Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1406 ....... ACL.18.2200, ACL.29.20, ACL.29.440 Insight Vacations Pty Ltd v Young [2011] HCA 16; (2011) 243 CLR 149; 85 ALJR 629; [2011] ATPR 42-354 ............................................................................................... 275.20, 275.40, ACL.64a.20 Insurance Commissioner v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd (No 2) (1982) 49 ALR 714; [1982] ATPR 40-300 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.1140 Inter Hospital Agreement – Alwyn Rehabilitation Hospital [2001] ATPR (Com) 50-287 .................. CCA.90.860 Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1991) 102 ALR 379; 21 IPR 373; [1991] ATPR 41-124; [1991] AIPC 90-819 ............................................................. ACL.18.2060, CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 624; (1992) 39 FCR 348; 111 ALR 577; [1992] ATPR 46-098 .................................................................. ACL.18.180, ACL.18.1100, CCA.86.440 International Air Transport Assn, Re (1985) 58 ALR 721; [1985] ATPR 40-537 ..... CCA.88.200, CCA.101.140, CCA.102.260 International Air Transport Assn, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-101 .................................................... CCA.90.1400 International Air Transport Assn, Re (A90791; 13 November 2002) ......................... CCA.91C.60, CCA.90.1400 International Air Transport Assn, Re (A91083; 7 March 2008) ......................................................... CCA.90.1400

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxiii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

International Commodities Clearing House Ltd, Re [1987] ATPR (Com) 50-066 ............................ CCA.90.1300 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1283 ...................................................... CCA.4.540 Interstate Parcel Express Co Pty Ltd v Time-Life International (Netherlands) BV [1977] HCA 52; (1977) 138 CLR 534; 52 ALJR 9 .................................................................................... CCA.86.220 Ironbridge Capital Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCA 1315; [2005] ATPR 42-082 ...... CCA.87B.120, CCA.87B.220, CCA.87B.280 Irwell Pty Ltd v Demand Sales Pty Ltd [1982] ATPR 40-332 ............................................................. CCA.80.540

J J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers (WA Branch) (1992) 44 IR 264 ............................................................................................................................ CCA.45D.100 J Fenwick & Co Pty Ltd, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-042 ................................................................ CCA.90.1180 J Fenwick & Co Pty Ltd, Re [1991] ATPR (Com) 50-107 ......................................... CCA.91B.60, CCA.90.1180 J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758 ........... CCA.4D.80, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4F.40, CCA.44ZZRD.200, CCA.47.380, CCA.76.380, CCA.76.420, CCA.76.600, CCA.76.1020 JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsiloglou [1994] 1 VR 237; [1993] ATPR 41-257 ................... ACL.236.80, ACL.236.480, CCA.82.320 JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175 .................................................................................... CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.160, CCA.2C.100 Jacazlow Pty Ltd v Amberley Autos Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-177; [1992] ASC 56-174 .................... ACL.41.40 Jacques v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR (Digest) 46-102; [1993] ASC 56-221 ..... ACL.4.60, ACL.4.100, ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.60, ACL.18.220, ACL.18.1580 James v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 347; [1986] ATPR (Digest) 46-005 ................... ACL.29.100, CCA.82.160, ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 526; 109 ALR 638; [1992] ATPR 41-186 ............................................................................................... ACL.234.40, ACL.236.100, ACL.236.120 Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1986) 6 IPR 227; [1986] ATPR 40-654 ..................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1620, ACL.29.520 Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2008] FCA 391 ................................. CCA.155AAA.20 Jekos Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Horticultural Finance Pty Ltd (1994) 12 Qd R 515 ................. CCA.87.220 Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd v Free [2008] VSC 539 .................... ACL.23.180, ACL.24.20, ACL.24.40, ACL.24.80, ACL.24.100 Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd v Amalgamated Milk Vendors Assn Inc (1989) 24 FCR 127; 91 ALR 397; 32 AILR 147; [1990] ATPR 40-997 ............................................................................ CCA.45D.180 Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd v Hall (1989) 85 ALR 375; [1989] ATPR 40-931 ................................ CCA.45D.120 Jewellers Assn of Australia, Re (A91432; 30 October 2014) ............................................................. CCA.90.1240 Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v ACCC [2013] FCAFC 144 .................................................. ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480 Jewelsnloo Pty Ltd v Sengos [2016] NSWCA 309 ...................................................... ACL.18.1940, ACL.236.60 Jiangyin Yinying Goods and Materials Trade Co. Ltd v Australia Victoria Capital Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 274 ............................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1640 Jillawarra Grazing Co v John Shearer Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 339; [1982] ATPR 40-309 ........................ CCA.86.80 Jillawarra Grazing Co v John Shearer Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-441; [1984] ASC 55-307 ..... ACL.3.60, ACL.54.60, ACL.54.160, ACL.58.80 Job Futures Ltd, Re (A91493) .............................................................................................................. CCA.90.1160 Job Futures Ltd [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-261 ........................................................................................ CCA.90.800 Jobbins v Capel Court Corp Ltd [1989] FCA 538; (1990) ATPR 41-005; (1989) 25 FCR 226 ...... ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Jobern Pty Ltd v BreakFree Resorts (Vic) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1066 ......................... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1320 John C Morish Pty Ltd v Luckman (1977) 16 SASR 143; 30 FLR 88 ............................................... CCA.79.420 John Dee (Export) Pty Ltd, Re [1990] ATPR 41-006 ........................................................................... CCA.105.20 John Dee (Export) Pty Ltd, Re (1989) ATPR 40-938 ......................................................................... FMRPG.6.60

lxiv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

John Englander and Co Pty Ltd v Ideal Toy Corp (1981) 54 FLR 227; 3 [1981] ATPR 40-218 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.2060 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, Re [1980] ATPR (Com) 50-041 ................................................................ CCA.90.1120 John G Glass Real Estate Pty Ltd v Karawi Constructions Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-249; [1993] ASC 56-228 ............................................................................. ACL.18.220, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1900 John McGrath Motors (Canberra) Pty Ltd v Applebee (1964) 110 CLR 656; [1974] 3 All ER 489 ............................................................................................................................................... ACL.29.240 John S Hayes & Assocs Pty Ltd v Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-318 .......... CCA.45.460, CCA.47.440, CCA.47.520 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2001] 1 All ER 481; 2 WLR 72; 1 BCLC 313; [2002] 2 AC 1 ...... ACL.236.440, CCA.82.260 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488; 74 ALJR 1380; 174 ALR 655; 26 Fam LR 627 ........................................................................................................................................ CCA.37.40 Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351; 87 ALR 587; 63 ALJR 51; [1988] Aust Torts Reports 80-224 .......................................................................................................... ACL.236.160, CCA.82.120 Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 205 ALR 346 ..................................... ACL.214.20, ACL.224.200 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Aust Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564; [2000] FCA 1572; [2001] ATPR 41-794 ..................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.160 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 1645; [2000] ATPR 41-743 ....................... CCA.138.80 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 477; (1999) 45 IPR 453; [1999] ATPR 41-696 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1572; [2001] ATPR 41-794 ....................... CCA.138.80 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 636; [1999] ATPR 41-698 ............. CCA.138.80 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (No 4) [2001] FCA 421; (2001) 113 FCR 42; [2001] ATPR 41-818 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 Johnstone v Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd (2003) 132 FCR 411; [2003] FCA 1052 ...... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1840 Jones v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 164; (2003) 131 FCR 216; 200 ALR 234; [2003] ATPR 41-950 ........................................................ CCA.88.80, CCA.88.100, CCA.88.120, CCA.88.180, CCA.90.520 Jones v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 224 ....................................................................................................... CCA.86.600 Jones v ACCC [2010] FCA 481 ........................................................................................................... ACL.18.1820 Jones v ACCC [2010] FCAFC 136 ............................................................................... ACL.18.1820, CCA.86.700 Jones v Acfold Investments Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 512; 59 ALR 613; [1985] ATPR 40-561 ......... ACL.18.1860 Jones v Glen Houn Holdings Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-604 .................................................................. ACL.37.40 Jones v Schiffmann (1971) 124 CLR 303; 45 ALJR 653; [1972] ALR 632 ............... ACL.236.400, CCA.82.240 Jones v Sterling (1982) 63 FLR 216; 1 TPR 446 ................................................................................... CCA.83.20 Jools, Re [2005] ACompT 4; (2005) 189 FLR 456; 219 ALR 328; [2005] ATPR 42-071 ................ CCA.101.60 Jools, Re [2006] ACompT 5; (2006) 233 ALR 115; [2006] ATPR 42-122 .............. CCA.91B.40, CCA.91B.120, CCA.95AT.20, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.1360, CCA.105.20 Julstar Pty Ltd v Hart Trading Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 151 ............................................................... ACL.236.560 Just Jeans Pty Ltd v Westco Jeans (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 403; [1988] ATPR 40-867 ........ ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.2160 Just Jeans Pty Ltd v Westco Jeans (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 13 IPR 661; [1989] ATPR 40-927 ........ ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.2160

K KAM Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1994] FCA 1182 ....................... CCA.47.220, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.660 Kabwand Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-950; [1989] ASC 55-718 .......... ACL.234.40, ACL.236.40, CCA.82.100 Kadkhudayan v WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd [2001] FCA 645; [2001] ATPR 41-822 ...................... CCA.46.920, CCA.48.200 Kadkhudayan v WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd [2002] FCAFC 110; [2002] ATPR 41-874 ................. CCA.48.200, CCA.96.340

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35; [2013] HCA 25 ... ACL.20.20ACL.20.60, ACL.20.380 Kannegieter v Hair Testing Laboratory Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 639; [2004] ATPR 42-003 .................. ACL.18.760, ACL.18.1620 Karedis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Antoniou (1995) 59 FCR 35; 137 ALR 544; 31 IPR 393; [1995] ATPR 41-427 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.236.220 Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471; [1992] ATPR 41-175 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1640 Kavanagh v Blissett [2001] NSWSC 79 .............................................................................................. ACL.18.1320 Kaze Constructions Pty Ltd v Housing Indemnity Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 10 BCL 63; [1990] ATPR 41-017 ......................................................................... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1320, ACL.18.1840 Keays v JP Morgan Administrative Services Australia Ltd [2012] FCAFC 100 ............................... ACL.18.1460 Keehn v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd (1977) 14 ALR 77; [1977] ATPR 40-047 ............ ACL.18.680, ACL.29.520 Keeley v Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162; 25 ALR 45 ......................................................................... CCA.80.620 Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1985) 61 ALR 504; [1985] ATPR 40-583 ................................................................................................... ACL.21.300, CCA.76.120 Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-853; [1988] ASC 55-654 ....... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1900, ACL.30.60, ACL.236.220, ACL.236.240, CCA.82.180 Keith Russell Simplicity Funerals Pty Ltd v Cremation Society of Australia (ACT) Ltd (1982) 57 FLR 472; 40 ALR 125; [1982] ATPR 40-273 ............................................................. CCA.45D.180 Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 55; (2010) 185 FCR 449; [2010] ATPR 42-318 ............................................................................................. ACL.107.140, ACL.224.120, ACL.224.140 Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liq) (No 4) [2016] FCA 323; (2016) 335 ALR 439 ....................... CCA.86.360 Kennan v Monahan [1991] 1 Qd R 401 .................................................................................................. ACL.43.40 Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd [1997] FCA 743 ....................................................... ACL.18.1840 Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd [1999] HCA 25; (1999) CLR 413; 73 ALJR 901; 163 ALR 611; [1999] NSW ConvR 55-905; Q ConvR 54-530; 11 ANZ Ins Cases 61-461; [1999] Aust Torts Reports 81-509; [1999] ATPR 41-711; [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 25 ..................................................................................................................................................... ACL.236.160 Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd v Apand Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 152; 119 ALR 156; 27 IPR 321; [1994] ATPR 41-287 ....................................................................... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.2280 Kevin R Whelpton & Assocs (Aust) Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1987) 14 FCR 293; 72 ALR 679; [1987] ATPR 40-780; [1987] ASC 55-575 ............................................................... CCA.170.20 Kewside Pty Ltd v Warman International Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-012 ........................... ACL.236.580, CCA.82.360 Kiley v Lysfar Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-614 ........................................................................................ ACL.29.360 Kimberley NZI Finance Ltd v Torero Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR (Digest) 46-054 ............ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1540 King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2000] FCA 617; (2000) 100 FCR 209; 174 ALR 715; [2000] ATPR 41-770 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 308; (2001) 54 IPR 500; 184 ALR 98 ................... CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120, CCA.76.140 King v Yurisich [2005] FCA 1277 ................................................................................... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1840 King v Yurisich [2006] FCAFC 136; (2006) 153 FCR 78 .................. ACL.18.1840, ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 Kinna v National Australia Bank Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 410; [1988] ATPR 40-878 ............................. CCA.86A.40 Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281; 69 ALJR 787; 131 ALR 363; [1995] ATPR 41-439 ......................................................................... ACL.236.500, ACL.243.80, ACL.243.180 Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor General [2013] HCA 52; (2013) 249 CLR 645 ................ CCA.4.500 Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 170; (2007) 242 ALR 586; 74 IPR 232 ......... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2400 Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc (2013) 211 FCR 449; [2013] FCAFC 59 ....................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1260 Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59; (2013) 211 FCR 449 ..................................................................................................... ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.2340, CCA.80.540

lxvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 117 ......................... CCA.80.540 Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc (No 2) [2015] FCA 1214 .............................. CCA.76.80 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Aust Pty Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 90; [2000] FCA 876 ............................................... ACL.18.1080, ACL.18.1600, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2200 Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 119 .......... ACL.18.580, ACL.18.2020 Koppers Australia Pty Ltd, Re (1981) 4 TPR 305; [1981] ATPR 40-203 ......................................... CCA.102.120 Korczynski v Wes Loft (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 10 FCR 348; 62 ALR 225; [1986] ATPR 40-643 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.29.260 Korean Air Lines v ACCC (No 3) [2008] FCA 701 ............................ CCA.155.20, CCA.155.180, CCA.155.580 Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 563 ............................... CCA.4M.20 Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 87 .......................... ACL.18.420, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2220, ACL.18.2300, CCA.4M.20 Kotan Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC (1991) 30 FCR 511; 102 ALR 51; [1991] ATPR 41-134 ................ CCA.155.20, CCA.155.180 Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 343 ................................................................ ACL.21.360 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-168; [1992] ASC 56-158 ............................... ACL.30.60 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563; 69 ALJR 629; 130 ALR 1; [1995] ATPR 41-420; [1995] NSW ConvR 55-751 .......................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1860, CCA.84.160 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd [1995] HCA 68; 183 CLR 563 ................................................ CCA.84.180 Krambousanos v Jedda Investments Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1314; (1996) 64 FCR 348; 142 ALR 604 ......................................................................... ACL.18.1540, ACL.236.20, ACL.237.40, CCA.87.60 Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd, Re (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094 ....................... CCA.163A.40, CCA.4.260, CCA.4.540, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.300, CCA.51.80 Kumar Motors (Bankstown) Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (t/as NRMA Insurance) [2016] NSWSC 1874 ...................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1680 Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 AC 883 ..................................................................................................................................................... ACL.236.40 Kwinana Motorplex Pty Ltd, Re (CB00324) ................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100

L L Grollo & Co Pty Ltd v Nu-Statt Decorating Pty Ltd (1978) 34 FLR 81; [1978] ATPR 40-086 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.45.80 LJ Hooker (Vic) Ltd, Re [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-058 ......................................................................... CCA.90.780 La Rosa, Re; Norgard v Rodpat Nominees Pty Ltd (1991) 31 FCR 83; 104 ALR 237; [1991] ATPR 41-139 .................................................... ACL.236.200, ACL.237.180, CCA.87.60, CCA.87.460 La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... ACL.236.420 Labouchere v Dawson (1872) LR 13 Eq 322 ....................................................................................... CCA.51.200 Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 1340 ..... ACL.18.500, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1960 Lake Koala Pty Ltd v Walker [1991] 2 Qd R 49; [1990] ATPR 41-041 ...................... ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1880, ACL.18.1940 Lakes R Us Pty Ltd, Re [2006] ACompT 3; (2006) 200 FLR 233; [2006] ATPR 42-114 ............. CCA.44K.160, CCA.102.200, CCA.103.40, CCA.103.180 Lam v Ausintel Investments Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 97 FLR 458; [1990] ATPR 40-990 ............... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1900, ACL.236.60, ACL.236.80 Laminex (Aust) Pty Ltd v Coe Manufacturing Co [1999] NSWCA 270; (1999) 29 MVR 415 ....................................................................................................................................................... ACL.67.20 Lamont, Re (1990) 96 ALR 475; [1990] ATPR 41-035 ....................................................................... CCA.90.360 Lanza v Codemo Management Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 72 ......................................... ACL.138.100, ACL.146.20 Larmer v Power Machinery Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 490; 14 ALR 243; [1977] ATPR 40-021 ........... CCA.4.540 Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 263 ALR 155; 83 IPR 582; [2010] FCA 29 ................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1520

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Latella v LJ Hooker Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 146; [1985] ATPR 40-555 ....................................................... ACL.30.20 Laurel Sand & Gravel Inc v CSX Transportation Inc [1991] 1 Trade Cases 69,312 ....................... CCA.44G.120 Lavrick v Lease Auto Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 599; (2002) 192 ALR 290 ............................................... ACL.54.160 Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1990] HCA 31; (1990) 170 CLR 70; 64 ALJR 412; 93 ALR 435 ................................................................................................................................ CCA.37.40 Laws v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 316 ............................................................................ ACL.3.60 Lawson Hill Estate Pty Ltd v Tovegold Pty Ltd (2004) 214 ALR 478; [2004] FCA 1593; [2004] ATPR 42-038 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1860 Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Oraka Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-601; [1998] ANZ ConvR 582 ................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.1900, ACL.234.40, CCA.82.100 Lee v Cafred Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-170 .................................................................. ACL.18.1860, ACL.20.460 Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc v PSKS Inc [2007-1] Trade Cases 75,753; 551 US 877 ....................................................................................................................................................... CCA.48.60 Leeks v FXC Corp [2002] FCA 72; (2002) 118 FCR 299; 189 ALR 288; [2002] ATPR 41-859 .................................................................................................................................................... ACL.7.20 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; 57 ALJR 292; 46 ALR 1 .................................................... ACL.20.140 Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paul’s (Merchants) Pty Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 465; 42 ALR 344; [1982] ATPR 40-308 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.160, ACL.18.2060 Lego System Aktieselskab v Lego M Lemelstrich Ltd [1983] FSR 155 ...................... CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Lelah v Associated Communication Corp of Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 543; 4 IPR 161; [1985] ATPR 40-551 ............................................................................................................... ACL.18.2380 Lennox v Megray Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-640 .................................................................................. CCA.79.160 Leo v Brambles Holdings Ltd (1982) 65 FLR 310; 45 ALR 441; 2 TPR 153; [1989] ATPR 40-310 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.236.160 Leon Laidely Pty Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (1980) 42 FLR 352; 28 ALR 129; [1980] ATPR 40-147 ................................................................................................................ CCA.45E.20 Leonie’s Travel Pty Ltd v International Air Transport Assn (2009) 255 ALR 89; [2009] FCA 280 ................................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1280 Leonie’s Travel Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (2010) 183 FCR 246; 265 ALR 727; [2010] FCAFC 37 ....................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1280 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666 ................................................. CCA.138.80 Levi Strauss & Co v Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 344; 116 ALR 298; 26 IPR 215; [1993] ATPR 41-252 ............................................................................... ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.2160 Lewarne v Momentum Productions Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1136 .......................................................... ACL.18.1560 (1992) 35 FCR 535 ................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.420 Lezam Pty Ltd v Seabridge Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 535; 107 ALR 291; [1992] ATPR 41-171 ....................................... ACL.18.420, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1900, ACL.237.180, CCA.87.460 Lin v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2003] FCA 1345 .............................. ACL.21.360, CCA.2B.180 Lindner v Murdock’s Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628; 24 ALJR 566; [1950] ALR 927 ......................... CCA.51.160 Liquor Stax Aust Ltd, Re (A91488 1 July 2015) .................................................................................. CCA.90.760 Lisciandro v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1995] FCA 1527; [1995] ATPR 41-436 ........................ ACL.20.60, ACL.21.340, CCA.84.120, CCA.88.100 Livestock Transporters’ Assn of Queensland Inc, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-117 .......................... CCA.90.1280 Logie Brae Pty Ltd v Sevenhill Holdings Pty Ltd (unreported, Fed Ct, No WAG 47/1992, 27 October 1992) ............................................................................................................................... ACL.18.480 Long Distance Road Transport Assn, Re (1982) 1 TPR 178 ............................................................... CCA.90.360 Lopez v Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 104 ................................................................... CCA.86.360 Lorain Journal Co v US 342 US 143 (1951) ................................................................................... CCA.PTIIIA.40 Lottery Agents Association of Tasmania, Re (A91309; 24 July 2012) ................................................ CCA.90.760 Lottery Agents Qld Ltd, Re (A91397; 16 April 2014) ................................................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1120 Lottery Assn of Victoria, Re (A91425; 10 September 2014) ............................................................. CCA.90.1120 Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 83; (2006) 149 FCR 494; 225 ALR 541; 67 IPR 611 ....................................................................................................... CCA.80.620

lxviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621; 67 ALJR 95; 110 ALR 1 ............... ACL.20.20, ACL.20.60, ACL.20.120 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; 12 A Crim R 408; 58 ALJR 414; 54 ALR 193 .............. CCA.76.640, CCA.79.240 Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 71 .............................................................. ACL.18.1360, ACL.236.540 Lubidineuse v Bevanere Pty Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 1; 55 ALR 273; [1984] FCA 252 ............................ ACL.18.580 Luckins v Highway Motel (Carnarvon) Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 164; 50 ALJR 309; 7 ALR 413 .................................................................................................................................... CCA.2A.80, CCA.5.60 Lumley Life Ltd v IOOF of Victoria Friendly Society (1989) 16 IPR 316; [1989] ATPR 40-987 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2260 Lumley Life Ltd v IOOF of Victoria Friendly Society (1991) 36 FCR 590; 100 ALR 600 FC; [1990] ATPR 40-987 .................................................................................................................. ACL.232.60 Lural Insurance Services Pty Ltd v Kairi Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-553 ............................................. CCA.80.200 Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (2010) 267 ALR 721; 86 IPR 247; [2010] FCA 423 .................................................................................. ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760, ACL.18.1420 Lyndel Nominees Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Aust Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 599 .............. ACL.4.80, ACL.4.100, ACL.4.220 Lyons v Kern Konstructions (Townsville) Pty Ltd (1983) 47 ALR 114; 70 FLR 135; [1983] ATPR 40-343 ..................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.400

M MCI Communications Corp v AT & T Co (1983) 708 F 2d 1081; [1982-3] Trade Cases 65,137 .................................................................................................................... CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120 MDI International Pty Ltd v Trio Brothers Trading Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 486 .......... ACL.18.1420, ACL.18.2180 MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd (1996) 140 ALR 313 .................................................. ACL.18.400 MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1746 ............................. ACL.18.1840, ACL.236.220 MGM Bailey Enterprises v Austin Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 20 ACLC 765; [2002] NSWSC 259; [2002] ATPR 41-875 .......................................................................................... ACL.18.600, ACL.243.40 MIM Holdings Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-233 ................................................... CCA.90.940, CCA.90.1020 MIPS Computer Systems Inc v MIPS Computer Resources Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 577; [1990] ATPR 41-050 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1340 MacCormick v Nowland [1988] ATPR 40-852; [1988] ASC 55-653 ................................................ ACL.18.1860 MacLean v Shell Chemical (Australia) Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 593 ...................................................... CCA.80.40 MacPhee v Peters Foods Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1528; (2004) 60 IPR 51; [2004] AIPC 91-958; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 41-246 .......................................................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1560 Macadamia Processing Co and Suncoast Gold Pty Ltd, Re [1991] ATPR (Com) 50-109 ............... CCA.90.1020, CCA.90.1140 Macdonald v Australian Wool Innovation Ltd [2005] FCA 105 ............... ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1460, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.200, ACL.21.340, ACL.21.360 Mackman v Stengold Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-105 .............................. ACL.18.480, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1840 Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle [2008] FCA 1417 ................................................................................ ACL.18.2220 Macquarie Generation, Re [2014] AcompT 1 ................................................................................. CCA.95AZA.20 Macquarie Generation & AGL Energy Ltd, Re [2014] ACompT 1 ...... CCA.4E.180, CCA.50.520, CCA.50.720, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.400, CCA.90.440, CCA.90.1100, CCA.95AT.20, CCA.95AT.60, CCA.95AU.20, CCA.95AU.60 Madden v Seafolly Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 30 ................. ACL.18.60, ACL.18.240, ACL.18.400, ACL.18.2020, ACL.18.2200, ACL.29.140 Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181; 76 ALJR 246; 185 ALR 152; 53 IPR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-854 ............................................................ CCA.4M.20 Magman International Pty Ltd v Westpac (1991) 32 FCR 1; 104 ALR 575; [1992] ATPR 41-161 ............................................................................................... ACL.236.240, ACL.236.480, CCA.82.320 Magna Alloys Research Pty Ltd v Bradshaw (1977) 3 TPR 154; 3 TPC 71 ...................................... CCA.51.160 Mahlo v Westpac Banking Corp [1999] NSWCA 358 ....................................................................... ACL.18.1300 Maisey v Mudgeeraba Village Estates Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-569 .................................................. CCA.76.120 Maitland City Council, Re (A91483 9 July 2015) .............................................................................. CCA.90.1060

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Black & Decker (A’asia) Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 270; [1990] ATPR 41-030 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1600 Mander Forklift Pty Ltd v Dairy Farmers Co-op [1990] ATPR (Digest) 46-061 .......... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.580 Manhattan (Asia) Ltd v Dymocks Franchise Systems (China) Ltd [2014] FCA 1143 ................ CCA.51ACB.20, CCA.5.60 Manning Valley Dairy Farmers, Re (CB00281 ................................................................................ CCA.93AB.100 Manser v Spry (1994) 181 CLR 428; 124 ALR 539; 68 ALJR 869 .................................................. ACL.236.260 Mantra IP Pty Ltd v Spagnuolo [2012] FCA 769 ................................................................................. ACL.18.540 Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 436; Aust Torts Reports 41-845; [2002] ASAL 55-074 .............................................................. ACL.18.600, ACL.236.160CCA.82.120 March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506; 65 ALJR 335; 99 ALR 423; 12 MVR 353; 9 BCL 215; [1991] Aust Torts Reports 81-095 ........ ACL.18.1120, ACL.236.40 Marcus Clark (Vic) Ltd v Brown [1928] VLR 293; (1928) 40 CLR 540; 2 ALJ 74; 34 ALR 189 ..................................................................................................................................................... ACL.29.240 Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN (Pacific) Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 61; 49 IPR 303; [2000] FCA 1626; [2001] ATPR 41-795 ................ ACL.18.160, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1920, ACL.18.2220, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.460 Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809 ........ CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.240, CCA.4E.280, CCA.4E.340, CCA.45.300, CCA.46.700 Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146 ........................................... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1840 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 ................................. ACL.224.220, CCA.76.280 Markit Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [2006] QSC 157; [2007] 1 Qd R 253 .................. ACL.18.60, CCA.2A.160, CCA.2C.80 Marks v GIO Aust Holdings Ltd (1996) 63 FCR 304; [1996] ATPR 41-471 ................................... ACL.18.1300 Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494; 73 ALJR 12; 158 ALR 333; [1998] HCA 69; [1998] ATPR 41-665; [1999] ASAL 55-014 .......... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.1220, ACL.234.40, ACL.236.20, ACL.236.80, ACL.236.100, ACL.236.160, ACL.236.340, ACL.236.460, ACL.237.140, ACL.243.20, ACL.243.100, ACL.243.140, ACL.243.180, CCA.4K.20, CCA.82.40, CCA.82.100, CCA.82.120, CCA.82.220, CCA.82.300, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.100, CCA.87.340, CCA.87.360, CCA.87.400 Marlbro Shelving Systems Pty Ltd v ARC Engineering Pty Ltd (1983) 72 FLR 418; [1983] ATPR 40-355 ................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.2320 Marsden v DCL Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1795 ................................................ ACL.21.340 Martin v Horseless Carriages Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-492 ................................................................ ACL.29.520 Martin v Tasmania Development & Resources [1999] FCA 593; (1999) 89 IR 98; 163 ALR 79; [1999] ATPR (Digest) 46-193 ......................................................... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1460, CCA.4.540 Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724 .......................................................... CCA.51.160 Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101; 82 ALJR 1322; [2008] HCA 38; [2008] ATPR 42-243 ....................................... CCA.51ACB.20, CCA.51ACB.80, CCA.51ACB.100 Masters Dairy Ltd v Nagy (1998) 156 ALR 262; [1998] ATPR 41-651 ........................................... ACL.236.260 Matheson Engineers Pty Ltd v El Raghy (1992) 37 FCR 6; [1992] ATPR 41-192 .......................... CCA.75B.80, CCA.75B.100 Mauri Bros & Thomson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Containers Ltd (1988) 11 IPR 477; [1988] AIPC 90-504 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.90.140 Mayne Nickless Ltd v Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1620; (2001) 114 FCR 108; [2002] ATPR 41-850 ........................... ACL.237.180, CCA.87.220, CCA.87.240, CCA.87.460 McCarthy v Australian Rough Riders Assn Inc [1988] ATPR 40-836 ............................ CCA.4.560, CCA.45.540 McCarthy v McIntyre [1999] FCA 784 .................................................. ACL.234.40, ACL.236.40, ACL.236.100 McCormick v Riverwood International (Australia) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1640; (1999) 167 ALR 689 .............................................................................................................................................. CCA.4.540 McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Co [2014] QSC 34 ............ ACL.9.20, ACL.9.60, ACL.9.140, ACL.138.120, ACL.139.40 McDonald v The Queen [1994] FCA 956; (1994) 48 FCR 555 .......................................................... CCA.76.640

lxx

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd v McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd (1979) 41 FLR 429; 3 TPR 364; [1979] ATPR 40-108 .............................................................................. CCA.80.160, CCA.86.440 McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd v McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd (No 2) (1979) 41 FLR 436; 28 ALR 236 .................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1180 McFarlane v Daniell (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 337; 55 WN (NSW) 132 .................................................. CCA.4L.20 McGrane v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 133 ........................................................... ACL.19.100 McGrath v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2 ............................................. ACL.18.1620 McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd, Re (1991) 104 FLR 295; [1991] ATPR (Digest) 41-140 ..................... CCA.101.140 McInnes v Global Imports Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-206; [1993] ASC 56-199 ................................ ACL.107.140 McIntosh v National Australia Bank Ltd (1988) 17 FCR 482; 80 ALR 47; [1988] ATPR 40-848; [1988] ASC 55-649 ............................................................................................................ CCA.86A.20 McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd [1999] FCA 1101; (1999) 165 ALR 409 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.4.200, CCA.86.160 McMahon v Pomeray Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-125 ............................................................................ ACL.236.60 McPhillips v Ampol Petroleum (Vic) Pty Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-014 ...................................................... ACL.4.220 McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v LS Booth Wine Transport Pty Ltd [1992] 25 NSWLR 723; [1992] ATPR (Digest) 46-089 ........................................................................................................... ACL.18.580 McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 455; 33 ALR 394; [1980] FCA 159 ................................................................................. ACL.18.140, ACL.18.1180 Meadow Gem Pty Ltd v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-130 ........... ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540 Media Council of Australia, Re (1982) 1 TPR 391 .............................................................................. CCA.90.660 Media Council of Australia, Re [1996] ATPR 41-497 .......................... CCA.91B.40, CCA.91B.60, CCA.91B.80, CCA.91B.120, CCA.152AL.20 Media Council of Australia (No 2), Re (1987) 88 FLR 1; 82 ALR 115; 11 IPR 162; [1987] ATPR 40-774 .................. CCA.91B.100, CCA.44ZP.40, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.180, CCA.90.420, CCA.90.480, CCA.90.520, CCA.102.80 Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Re (A91204; 26 May 2010) ........................ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1080 Medibank Private Ltd v Cassidy [2002] FCAFC 290; (2002) 124 FCR 40; 20 ACLC 1722; 12 ANZ Ins Cas 61-550; [2002] ATPR 41-895 ......... ACL.18.1220, ACL.237.20, ACL.237.100, CCA.80.20, CCA.80.300, CCA.87.160, CCA.131A.60 Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd v Cassidy (2003) 135 FCR 1; 205 ALR 402; 13 ANZ Ins Cases 61-591; [2003] FCAFC 289; [2003] ATPR 41-971 ....................... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.880, ACL.224.100, ACL.224.120, ACL.224.140, ACL.247.20, ACL.247.40, CCA.76.140 Medicines Australia Inc, Re [2007] ATPR 42-164; [2007] ACompT 4 ... CCA.88.100, CCA.88.140, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.340, CCA.90.500, CCA.90.520, CCA.90.740, CCA.90.860, CCA.91.60, CCA.95AT.20 Medicines Australia Ltd, Re (A91316; 20 December 2012) ................... CCA.90.740, CCA.90.860, CCA.90.880 Medicines Australia Ltd, Re (A91436 24 April 2015) .......................................................................... CCA.90.740 Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151; (2003) 130 FCR 182; 198 ALR 630; [2003] ATPR 41-939 ........................................................................ ACL.54.20, ACL.54.40, ACL.54.80, ACL.54.160 Melbourne City Council, Re (A91532) ......................................................................... CCA.90.840, CCA.90.1060 Melbourne Home of Ford Pty Ltd v TPC [1979] FCA 15; (1979) 36 FLR 450; [1979] ATPR 40-107 ...................... CCA.155.20, CCA.155.60, CCA.155.100, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.260, CCA.155.320, CCA.155.340, CCA.155.440 Melbourne Home of Ford Pty Ltd v TPC [1979] FCA 64; (1979) 27 ALR 275 .............................. CCA.155.220 Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 ........... ACL.232.20, CCA.4E.340, CCA.4F.60, CCA.163A.100, CCA.46.60, CCA.46.100, CCA.46.180, CCA.46.200, CCA.46.280, CCA.46.420, CCA.46.680, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.820, CCA.47.260, CCA.80.220, CCA.87CA.20 Menhaden Pty Ltd v Citibank NA (1984) 1 FCR 542; 55 ALR 709; [1984] ATPR 40-471 ............... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.600

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxi

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Menmel Pty Ltd v The Great Australian Bite Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-553 ............. ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1840, ACL.236.80 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova SpA v Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5889 ...... CCA.44G.140, CCA.PTIIIA.60 Mercieca v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 204 ............................................................................ CCA.86.360 Mercier Rouse Street Pty Ltd v Burness [2015] VSCA 8 ...................................................................... ACL.2.160 Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128; (2011) 196 FCR 145 .......... ACL.9.20, ACL.9.40, ACL.9.100, ACL.9.140, ACL.54.20, ACL.54.40, ACL.54.80, ACL.54.160, ACL.55.20, ACL.55.60, ACL.55.140, ACL.138.20, ACL.138.60, ACL.138.80, ACL.138.120, ACL.236.40 Mereenie Producers, Re [1999] ATPR (Com) 50-271 .......................................................................... CCA.90.840 Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v The Securities Commission [1995] UKPC 5; [1995] 2 AC 500 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.155.140 Merman Pty Ltd v Cockburn Cement Ltd (1988) 84 ALR 521; [1988] ATPR 40-915 ................... ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540 Merost Pty Ltd v CPT Custodian Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 97 ........................................ ACL.18.1860, CCA.137B.20 Metropolitan Waste Management Group, Re (A91414; 18 June 2014) ............................................. CCA.90.1060 Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group, Re (A91498; 9 July 2015) .............................. CCA.90.1060 Miba Pty Ltd v Nescor Industries Group Pty Ltd (1996) 141 ALR 525; [1996] ATPR 41-534 ........................................ ACL.4.60, ACL.4.100, ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1580 Michael (Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline), Re [2002] WASCA 231; (2002) 25 WAR 511; [2002] ATPR 41-886 ........................................................................... CCA.44M.60, CCA.44DA.40 Microsoft Corp v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 578; [2000] FCA 1852 ................ ACL.18.2180 Mid Density Development Pty Ltd v Rockdale Municipal Council (1992) 39 FCR 579; [1993] ATPR (Digest) 46-100 .......................................................................................................... CCA.2A.160 Mikasa (NSW) Pty Ltd v Festival Stores [1972] HCA 69; (1972) 127 CLR 617; 47 ALJR 14; [1972-73] ALR 921 ................................ CCA.48.60, CCA.80.180, CCA.81.20, CCA.96.80, CCA.100.40 Milchas Investments Pty Ltd v Larkin (1989) 96 FLR 464; [1989] ATPR 40-956 ........ ACL.18.400, CCA.4.560 Mildura Fruit Juices Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1983) 67 FLR 1; 5 TPR 296; 1 IPR 56; [1983] ATPR 40-365 .............................................................................................................. ACL.33.40, CCA.155.420 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; 83 ALR 1; 63 ALJR 117; 36 A Crim R 468 ...................... CCA.76.640, CCA.79.280 Miller v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) 52 IPR 419; [2000] FCA 1724; [2000] ATPR 41-792 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.860 Miller v Cunninghams Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-321; [1994] ASC 58-271 .......... ACL.107.140 Miller v Fiona’s Clothes Horse of Centrepoint Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-963 ............. ACL.29.540, ACL.136.80, ACL.208.80 Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 357; 84 ALJR 644; 270 ALR 204; [2010] HCA 31 ............... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.500, ACL.18.1540, ACL.18.1680 Minchillo v Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd [1995] 2 VR 594; [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-119; ASC 56-266 .............................................................................................................................. ACL.3.60 Mine Energy Solutions Pty Ltd, Re (A91541 ....................................................................................... CCA.90.900 Mineral Commodities Ltd v Promet Engineers Africa (Pty) Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 525 .................. CCA.6.120, CCA.86.60 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165; 198 ALR 59; [2003] HCA 30 .............................................................................. CCA.102.300 Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23; [1981] ATPR 40-226 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.243.180, CCA.86.500 Modtech Engineering Pty Ltd v GPT Management Holdings Ltd [2013] FCA 626 ........................... CCA.86.360 Monaco Willows Pty Ltd v Greenbax Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-527 ................................................ ACL.18.2280 Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2001] FCA 1056; [2001] ATPR (Digest) 46-212 .......................................... ACL.21.140, ACL.29.140, CCA.87B.60

lxxii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] FCAFC 197; [2002] ATPR 41-879 ................... ACL.21.80, ACL.21.240, ACL.21.360, CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.240, CCA.45.220, CCA.45.760, CCA.46.320, CCA.46.980, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.500 Morey v Transurban City Link Ltd (No 2) (1996) 20 ACSR 388; [1996] ATPR 41-492 ................. ACL.18.1940 Morgo’s Leisure Pty Ltd v Toula Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 325 ............................................... ACL.243.160 Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan [2008] FCAFC 70; (2008) 168 FCR 383 .............. ACL.214.20, ACL.224.200 Morphett Arms Hotel Pty Ltd v TPC (1980) 30 ALR 88; [1980] ATPR 40-157 .................................. CCA.45.80 Morris v Alcon Laboratories (Australia) Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 151; [2003] ATPR 41-923 ................. CCA.138.80 Mortgage & Finance Assn of Australia, Re (A91396; 21 May 2014) ................................................. CCA.90.740 Mortgage Guarantee Insurance Corp of Australia Ltd, Re (1984) 73 FLR 304; [1984] ATPR 40-494 ..................................................................................................................... CCA.102.220, CCA.102.240 Mortgage Industry Assn of Australia, Re (2004) A90880 .................................................................... CCA.90.740 Mortgage and Finance Assn of Australia, Re (A91118; 27 May 2009) ............................................... CCA.90.740 Morwood v Chemdata Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-629 ........................................................................... CCA.4E.340 Moss v Insurance Australia Ltd [2004] FCA 1636 ............................................................................... ACL.20.500 Moss v Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1181 ..................................................................... ACL.18.80 Moss v NRMA Ltd [2003] FCA 1378 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.1680 Motor Traders Assn of New South Wales, Re [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-063 ....................................... CCA.90.360 Motorcycling Events Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 361; (2013) 86 NSWLR 55; 279 FLR 202 .............. ACL.64a.40, ACL.64.20, CCA.139A.20, CCA.139A.40, 275.20, 275.40 Mulcahy v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170; 44 AILR 3-837; [1998] ATPR (Digest) 46-186 ............................................................................................................. ACL.20.340, CCA.4.540 Muller v Fencott (1982) 57 FLR 35; 6 A Crim R 320; 39 ALR 496; [1982] ATPR 40-266 ............... CCA.82.20 Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-522 ............... ACL.18.1160 Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 226; (2001) 109 FCR 528; [2001] ATPR 41-813 ................................................... ACL.243.100, CCA.87.80, CCA.87.340 Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Amdel Ltd [1991] ATPR (Digest) 41-154; [1991] ASC 56-108 ...................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1320, ACL.18.1840 Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio (1988) 58 FCR 274; 84 ALR 700; [1989] ATPR 40-926 ....................... ACL.18.1940, ACL.236.460, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.140, ACL.243.180, CCA.82.300, CCA.87.300, CCA.87.400 Munro v Tooheys Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 74; 21 IPR 268; [1991] ATPR 41-108; [1991] ASC 56-065 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1560 Murphy v Farmer [1988] HCA 31; (1988) 165 CLR 19; 79 ALR 1; 62 ALJR 420 ............................. ACL.29.80 Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 500; (2001) 112 FCR 182; [2001] ATPR 41-189 .................................................................................... ACL.20.440, ACL.236.160, ACL.236.220 Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 204 ALR 26; 78 ALJR 324; [2004] HCA 3; [2004] ATPR 41-973; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-189 ................ ACL.18.1220, ACL.18.1900, ACL.236.160, ACL.243.20CCA.82.80, CCA.82.120, CCA.87.20 Murphy v Victoria (2014) 289 FLR 337; 313 ALR 546; [2014] VSCA 238 ................... CCA.2A.80, ACL.18.60 Murran Investments Pty Ltd v Aromatic Beauty Products Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1732; (2000) 191 ALR 579 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 Musca v Astle Corp Pty Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 251; [1988] ATPR 40-855; [1988] Aust Torts Reports 80-171 ..................................... ACL.236.460, ACL.243.60, ACL.243.140, CCA.82.300, CCA.87.400 Mutual Pools & Staff Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1994) 179 CLR 155; 68 ALJR 216; 119 ALR 577; 27 ATR 357; 94 ATC 4,103 .............................................................................................. CCA.81.20 Myer Ltd, Re (A91384; 20 February 2014) ........................................................................................ CCA.90.1240 Myers v Transpacific Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-673 .......... ACL.236.280, ACL.243.60, CCA.87.300

N NARTA International Pty Ltd, Re (A91335; 11 April 2013) ....................................... CCA.90.740, CCA.90.1240 NBN Co Ltd, Re (A91479 28 August 2015) .................................................................. CCA.90.1320, CCA.91.40

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxiii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 10) [2000] FCA 1558; (2000) 107 FCR 270; 186 ALR 442 .............................................................................................................. CCA.84.120, CCA.88.100 NRM Corp Pty Ltd v ACCC [2016] FCAFC 98 ................ ACL.21.40, ACL.21.260, ACL.21.280, ACL.21.340, ACL.24.140 NRMA Ltd v Yates [1999] NSWSC 859; [1999] ATPR 41-721; (1999) 18 ACLC 45 ...................... ACL.18.680, CCA.4.540 NSW v RT & YE Falls Investments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 54; (2003) 57 NSWLR 1; [2003] ASAL 55-107 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.2C.100 NSW Farmers’ Association, Re (A91417; 25 June 2014) ............................................ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 NSW MidCoast & SA Barossa Mid North Co-operative Dairymen Ltd, Re (CB00287 ............... CCA.93AB.100 NSW Minerals Council Ltd, Re [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005 ...... CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.140, CCA.44G.160 NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2001] FCA 334; (2001) 184 ALR 481; [2001] ATPR 41-814 ........................................................................................................ CCA.2A.80 NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2002] FCAFC 302; (2002) 122 FCR 399; [2003] ATPR 41-909 .............................................................. CCA.2A.60, CCA.2B.40, CCA.2B.80 NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 ................ CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.160, CCA.2B.80, CCA.2B.180, CCA.2C.60, CCA.2C.100, CCA.4E.340, CCA.44ZZNA.20, CCA.46.60, CCA.46.320, CCA.46.380, CCA.46.440CCA.46.460, CCA.46.480, CCA.46.520, CCA.46.680, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.800, CCA.46.880, CCA.46.920 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285; 141 ALR 640; [1997] ATPR 41-546 ........ CCA.76.220, CCA.76.260, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.340, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.400, CCA.76.640, CCA.76.1020, CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.400 Narhex Aust Pty Ltd v Sunspot Products Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 535; [1990] ATPR 41-036 .......... ACL.18.1620 National Australia Bank Ltd v Cunningham [1990] ATPR 41-047 ...................................................... ACL.236.80 National Australia Bank Ltd v McKay [1995] ATPR 41-409 ............................................................... ACL.21.340 National Australia Bank Ltd v Nobile (1988) 100 ALR 227; [1988] ATPR 40-856; [1988] ASC 55-657 ............................................................................................................... ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180 National Companies and Securities Commission v Bankers Trust Australia Ltd (1989) 24 FCR 217; 91 ALR 321; 8 ACLC 1; 1 ACSR 330 ......................................................................... CCA.155.360 National Exchange Pty Ltd v ASIC (2004) 49 ACSR 369; 61 IPR 420; 22 ACLC 609; [2004] FCAFC 90; [2004] ATPR 42-000 ....................... ACL.18.20, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1540, ACL.18.2120 National Foods Ltd, Re [2002] ACompT 3; [2002] ATPR 41-885 .................................................... CCA.101.160 National Library of Australia, Re (A91012; 17 January 2007) .......................................................... CCA.90.1340 National Management Services (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 9 BCL 190 ...................... CCA.2A.160 National Mutual Holdings Ltd v Sentry Corp (1988) 19 FCR 155 .................................................... CCA.86A.20 National Woolpack Pool, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-111 ........................................... CCA.90.800, CCA.90.1140 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 215; [1996] ATPR 41-543 ............................... ACL.18.1020 Natureland Parks Pty Ltd v My-Life Corp Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 237; [1996] ATPR 41-493 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.5.140 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 198; (2010) 86 IPR 1 .......................... ACL.18.1560 Natwest Australia Bank Ltd v Boral Gerrard Strapping Systems Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 631; [1992] ATPR 41-196 ...................................................................................... CCA.46.420, CCA.151AJ.60 Nauru Local Government Council v Australian Shipping Officers Assn (1978) 34 FLR 281; 27 ALR 535; [1978] ATPR 40-087 ........................................................................... CCA.45D.160, CCA.4.280 Neat Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd [2001] FCA 1178; (2001) 114 FCR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-836 ....................................................................................................................................... CCA.51.80 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170; 110 ALR 449 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.76.160 Neilsen v Hempston Holdings Pty Ltd (1986) 65 ALR 302; [1986] ATPR 40-686 .............................. ACL.18.80 Nella v Kingia Pty Ltd (1985) 11 FCR 281; 7 IPR 55; [1986] ATPR 40-723 ................................... CCA.75B.20

lxxiv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Nella v Kingia Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-952 ............................................................... ACL.236.580, CCA.82.360 Nelson v Fernwood Fitness Centre Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 802 ............................................................. CCA.86A.40 Nelson Enterprises Pty Ltd, Re (CB00148) ..................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100 Nescor Industries Group Pty Ltd v Miba Pty Ltd (1998) 150 ALR 633; [1998] ATPR 41-609 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1580 Nestle Australia Ltd, Re [2006] ACompT 9 ........................................................................................ CCA.103.100 Nestle Australia Ltd, Re [2007] ACompT 2; [2007] ATPR 42-145 .......................... CCA.101A.20, CCA.103.180 Nestlé S.A/Pfizer Inc (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 May 2013) ..................................... CCA.50.200 Netcomm (Aust) Pty Ltd v Dataplex Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 101; 11 IPR 375; [1988] ATPR 40-883; [1988] ASC 55-670 ............................................................................ ACL.29.260, ACL.29.500 New South Wales Bar Assn v Forbes Macfie Hansen Pty Ltd (1988) 18 FCR 378; 82 ALR 431; [1988] 40-875 ............................................................................................................................. CCA.2B.20 New South Wales Lotteries Corp Pty Ltd v Kuzmanovski [2011] FCAFC 106 .......... ACL.18.860, ACL.18.960, ACL.18.1520, ACL.236.360 New South Wales Mutual Real Estate Fund Ltd v Brookhouse (1979) 38 FLR 257; [1979] ATPR 40-104 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.84.120 Newfurn Floor Coverings Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-259 .......................................................... CCA.90.800 News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 58 FCR 447; 135 ALR 33; [1996] ATPR 41-466 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.4F.80 News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521 ............... CCA.4D.80, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4L.20, CCA.4.540, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.100, CCA.45.180, CCA.45.620, CCA.87.300 News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943 ................... CCA.4D.160, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4F.40, CCA.4F.60, CCA.45D.180, CCA.45E.60, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.240, CCA.46.700, CCA.47.380 Newsagency Council of Victoria Ltd, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-134 ............................................. CCA.90.1120 Newsagents Assn of NSW and the ACT, Re (A91269; 6 October 2011) ................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1240 Newton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1958) 98 CLR 1; 32 ALJR 187; 11 ATD 442; [1958] ALR 833; [1958] AC 450 ....................................................................................................... CCA.45.80 Nexans SA RCS Paris 393 525 852 v ACCC [2014] FCA 255 ..................................................... CCA.155AA.20 Nextra Australia Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2014] FCA 399 ......................................................................... ACL.18.1740 Nike International Ltd v Campomar Sociedad Limitada [1996] ATPR 41-518 ......... ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.2240 Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 46; [2005] FCA 1404; [2006] AIPC 92-141 ............................................................................................................. ACL.18.1520 Nixon v Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1107; (1999) 95 FCR 453; 165 ALR 515; [1999] ATPR 41-707 ................. ACL.236.240, ACL.236.460, ACL.243.140, CCA.82.300, CCA.87.400 Nixon v Slater & Gordon [2000] FCA 531; [2000] ATPR 41-765 .................................................... ACL.18.1840 Nobile v National Australia Bank Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-787; [1987] ASC 55-580 ..... ACL.243.60, ACL.243.180 Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc [2012] VSCA 91 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.20 Norcast S.ar.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14 .............. ACL.18.2040, CCA.5.120, CCA.44ZZRA.40, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.44ZZRD.160, CCA.44ZZRD.200, CCA.44ZZRD.220, CCA.44ZZRJ.100, CCA.44ZZRU.20 Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 283 ............................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.100 Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535 ............ CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 North East Equity Pty Ltd v Proud Nominees Pty Ltd (2010) 269 ALR 262; [2010] FCAFC 60 ................................................................................................................................. ACL.4.180, ACL.18.1320 North East Equity Pty Ltd v Proud Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 1 ............................................. ACL.4.180 Northern Sydney Region Councils (NSROC), Re (A30231; 16 December 2004) ............................ CCA.90.1060 Nursing Agencies Assn of Australia, Re [2003] ACompT 2; (2003) 175 FLR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-936 .......................................................................................................... CCA.102.200, CCA.103.180

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Nutrientwater Pty Ltd v Baco Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 2 ....................... ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2180, ACL.18.2200, ACL.18.2280 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 6) [2015] FCA 1294 ........................................................................ ACL.18.60

O O’Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107; 2 IPR 69; [1983] FCA 333; [1983] ATPR 40-418 ............................................................................................................................ ACL.18.580, CCA.4.540 O’Bryen v Coles Myer Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-209 ......................................................... ACL.29.340, ACL.107.140 OD Transport Pty Ltd v Western Australian Government Railways Commission (1986) 13 FCR 270; 71 ALR 190; [1987] ATPR 40-761 .............................................................. CCA.4.560, CCA.80.80 O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 19 ALD 743; 169 CLR 356; 92 ALR 213; 64 ALJR 283 ....................................................................................................................................... ACL.45.60 O’Keeffe Nominees Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 85; 110 ALR 357; [1992] ATPR 41-188 ...................................................................................................... CCA.163A.40, CCA.163A.100 O’Keeffe Nominees Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (No 2) (1995) 55 FCR 591; 128 ALR 718; [1995] ATPR 41-393 .......................................................................................... CCA.87CA.20, CCA.163A.180 O’Neill v El Camino Autos Pty Ltd (1980) 42 FLR 35; [1980] ATPR 40-158 ............ CCA.76.600, CCA.79.400 O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd [2002] FCAFC 188; (2002) 122 FCR 455; 52 AILR 4-646; [2002] ATPR 41-882; [2002] ASAL 55-084 ............. ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1460, ACL.236.520, ACL.236.560, CCA.82.340 Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839 .................................................................. CCA.4.500, CCA.4.540, CCA.155.20 Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCAFC 155 ...................... CCA.4.500, CCA.44ZZRD.160, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.580 Office Choice Ltd, Re (A91389; 23 January 2014) ...................................................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1240 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc [2009] EWCA Civ 116; [2010] 1 AC 696; [2009] All ER (D) 270 (Feb); [2009] 2 WLR 1286 ........................................................................ ACL.23.120 Olex Focas Pty Ltd v Skodaexport Co Ltd [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-163 ......................................... ACL.20.320 Olivia Newton-John v Scholl-Plough (Aust) Ltd (1986) 1 FCR 233; [1986] ATPR 40-697 .............. ACL.18.740 Opals Australia Pty Ltd v Opal Australiana Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-264 ....................................... ACL.18.2460 Optical Prescriptions Spectacle Makers Pty Ltd v Vlastaras [1991] ATPR 41-150 ...... CCA.51.160, CCA.51.200 Oraka Pty Ltd v Leda Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 297; [1997] ATPR 41-558 ..... ACL.18.420, ACL.237.200, ACL.243.160, ACL.243.180 Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v RSPCA (Vic) [2002] FCA 860; (2002) 120 FCR 191; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-223; [2002] ASAL 55-089 ...................................... ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540, CCA.4.560 Orison Pty Ltd v Strategic Minerals Corp NL (1987) 77 ALR 141; 13 ACLR 314; [1987] ATPR 40-803 ....................................................................................................................................... CCA.4.540 Orton v Melman [1981] 1 NSWLR 583 ................................................................................................ CCA.4M.20 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG Case C7/97 26/11/98 ...................................................................................................... CCA.PTIIIA.60 Osciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 563 ................................. CCA.4M.20 Osgaig Pty Ltd v Ajisen (Melbourne) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1394; (2004) 213 ALR 153; 63 IPR 156; [2004] ATPR 42-036; [2005] ASAL 55-135 ..................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.2280, ACL.29.440 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 ......................................... CCA.90.500 Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 3) [2014] FCA 835 ......................................................................... CCA.138.80 Otter Tail Power Co v US 410 US 366 (1973) ...................................................... CCA.44G.100, CCA.PTIIIA.40 Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR 465; 13 ALD 740; 77 ALR 577 ................................................................................. ACL.21.140, ACL.29.140, CCA.87B.60 Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120; 44 ALR 667; [1982] ATPR 40-327 ................................ CCA.4.140, CCA.47.260, CCA.47.520, CCA.80.520 Overlook Management BV v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 17; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-219 .................................................................................................................................. ACL.21.360 Overmyer Industrial Brokers Pty Ltd v Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 305; [2003] ATPR (Digest) 46-242 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.660 Overmyer Industrial Brokers Pty Ltd, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-039 .................... CCA.90.1200, CCA.90.1280

lxxvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

O’Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107; 2 IPR 69; [1983] FCA 333; [1983] ATPR 40-418 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.580

P P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v ACCC [2012] HCA 33 .............................................................................. CCA.4.280 PG & LJ Smith Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Lanskey Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1618; (2004) 137 IR 98 ............................................................................................................................ CCA.45E.100 PMP/McPherson’s (ACCC Competition Assessment 27 August 2007) ......................... CCA.50.160, CCA.50.240 PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in liq.) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; 131 ALR 377; [1995] HCA 36 ......................................................................................... ACL.45.60 POA Enterprises Pty Ltd v Chemist Warehouse Cairns [2012] QSC 316 ......................................... ACL.18.1620 PT Ltd v Spuds Surf Chatswood Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 446 ....................................... ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340 Pacific Brands/Joyce (ACCC Competition Assessment 22 March 2005) ............................................ CCA.50.160 Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Hogan (1989) 23 FCR 553; 87 ALR 14; 14 IPR 398; [1989] ATPR 40-948; [1989] AIPC 90-578 ..................................... ACL.18.120, ACL.18.740, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2360 Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v IPC Media Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 104; (2003) 57 IPR 28 ................. ACL.18.2400, CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 50; (2015) 236 FCR 199; 321 ALR 584 ........... ACL.20.60, ACL.21.40, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.100ACL.21.280, ACL.21.340, ACL.22.20, ACL.22.40, ACL.24.140 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] HCA 28; (2016) 90 ALJR 835 ................................... ACL.20.60, ACL.21.40, ACL.21.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.22.40, ACL.24.140 PaintRight Ltd, Re (CB00289 – CB00322 ...................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100 Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 ................................................................................................. CCA.45.100 Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2 ......... ACL.18.500 Panelboard Pty Ltd v TPC [1981] FCA 98; (1981) 59 FLR 395 ......................................................... CCA.155.20 Paper Products Pty Ltd v Tomlinsons (Rochdale) Ltd (No 2) [1993] FCA 430; (2003) 44 FCR 485 ............................................................................................................................................ CCA.138.60 Paper Sales (Aust) WA Pty Ltd v PSA Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-142; [1991] ASC 56-111 .............. ACL.18.220, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1940, ACL.236.60 Pappas v Soulac Pty Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 231; [1983] ATPR 40-411 .......................... ACL.18.220, ACL.18.1860 Paramedical Services Pty Ltd v The Ambulance Service of New South Wales [1999] FCA 548 .................................................................................................................................................... CCA.2A.160 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191; 56 ALJR 715; 42 ALR 1; [1982] HCA 44; [1982] ATPR 40-307 ...................... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.100, ACL.18.140, ACL.18.160, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.240, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.540, ACL.18.1080, ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.2120, ACL.29.20 Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119 ............. CCA.4F.40, CCA.45.240, CCA.47.560, CCA.80.160 Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd v SWB Family Credit Union Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 273; [1979] ATPR 40-102 ...................................................................................................... CCA.4.260, CCA.4.500 Parras Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 391 ................................. ACL.21.340 Parrys Department Store (WA) Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd (1983) 76 FLR 60; [1983] ATPR 40-393 ......................................................................... CCA.137H.80, CCA.48.340, CCA.83.140, CCA.96.300 Pascoe v Boensch [2009] FCA 1240 ..................................................................................................... CCA.138.80 Pascoe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 11 ATD 108; 30 ALJR 402 ........................... CCA.45D.180, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.240, CCA.46.700 Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1570 ............................................................... CCA.86.540 Patrick v Steel Mains Pty Ltd (1987) 77 ALR 133; 22 IR 81; [1987] ATPR 40-794 .......................... CCA.4.540 Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) [1998] HCA 30; (1998) 195 CLR 1; 72 ALJR 873 .................................................................................... CCA.80.120 Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust [1989] ATPR 40-951 .......... CCA.47.80, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.620, CCA.47.660

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust (1990) 22 FCR 495; 94 ALR 225; [1990] ATPR 41-029 ...................................................................................................... CCA.4A.60, CCA.51.80 Pearson v HRX Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 111 ......................................................................... CCA.4M.20 Pegasus Leasing Ltd v Cadoroll Pty Ltd (1996) 59 FCR 152; [1996] ATPR 41-495 ........................... CCA.86.80 Peninsula Balmain Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 211 ............................. ACL.18.460 Peregrine Corp/ BP Australia Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 15 December 2014) ........................................................................................................................... CCA.50.180, CCA.50.260 Pereira v DPP [1988] HCA 57; (1988) 63 ALJR 1; 35 A Crim R 382; 82 ALR 217 ..................... ACL.224.100, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120 Perisher Blue Pty Ltd v Nair-Smith [2015] NSWCA 90 ............................................................................... 275.20 Perpetual Ltd/The Trust Company Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 December 2013) ........................................................................................................................... CCA.50.240, CCA.50.400 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Khoshaba (2006) 14 BPR 26,639; [2006] NSWCA 41 ........ ACL.20.20, ACL.23.20 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWCA 367 ................ ACL.18.1300, ACL.234.40, ACL.236.60, CCA.137B.20 Peter Williamson Pty Ltd v Capitol Motors Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 257; 41 ALR 6131 TPR 309; [1982] ATPR 40-291 ... ACL.35.60, CCA.48.180, CCA.48.280, CCA.77.40, CCA.80.520, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.220, CCA.96.360, CCA.100.40 Petera Pty Ltd v EAJ Pty Ltd (1984) 7 FCR 375; [1985] ATPR 40-605 ............................................ ACL.18.420 Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [1999] FCA 1245; [1999] ATPR 41-714 ....................................... CCA.4M.20 Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [2001] HCA 45; (2001) 205 CLR 126; 75 ALJR 1385; 181 ALR 337; [2001] ATPR 41-830 .......................................................................... CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Patricia’s Chocolates & Candies Pty Ltd (1947) 77 CLR 574; 21 ALJR 281 .............................................................................................. CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 Peterson v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 180; (2010) 184 FCR 1 ................. ACL.2.120, ACL.9.40, ACL.54.20, ACL.55.20, ACL.55.80, ACL.142.40, ACL.142.100, CCA.4C.20 Petersville Ltd v Peters (WA) Ltd [1999] FCA 5; (1999) 160 ALR 359; 43 IPR 323; [1999] ATPR 41-674 ............................................................................................................... CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.200 Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] Ch 146 .......................................................................... CCA.4M.20 Petty v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-263 .............................. ACL.18.220, ACL.18.600, CCA.4E.340 Petty v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 282; [1994] ATPR 41-320 ................. ACL.18.220, ACL.18.600, CCA.4E.340 Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (No 6) [2011] FCA 277 ................................. CCA.86.360 Pharmacy Guild of Australia (Qld Branch), Re [1983] 5 TPR 45 ....................................................... CCA.90.800 Phelps v Western Mining Corp Ltd (1978) 33 FLR 327; 20 ALR 183; [1978] ATPR 40-077 ...... CCA.163A.80, CCA.80.180 Philip Morris Australia Ltd v Nixon [2000] FCA 229; [2000] ATPR 41-759 ..................................... CCA.138.80 Phillip & Anton Homes Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1988] ATPR 40-838; [1988] ASC 55-635 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.30.60, CCA.2A.140 Phoenix Court Pty Ltd v Melbourne Central Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 1101; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-179 .................................................................................................................................... ACL.4.200 Photo-Continental Pty Ltd v Sony (Aust) Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-372 ...................... CCA.46.200, CCA.46.220 Pihiga Pty Ltd v Roche [2011] FCA 240 ........................................................................ ACL.18.500, ACL.18.640 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58 .................... CCA.44G.180, CCA.42.20, CCA.102.300 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36 ......................... CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.180, CCA.44H.60, CCA.44K.40 Pillifeant v Colemma Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-508 ............................................................................... CCA.86.80 Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2001] HCA 31; (2001) 207 CLR 165; 75 ALJR 1067 ................. CCA.4.500, CCA.44ZZRD.160 Pinetrees Lodge Pty Ltd v Atlas International Pty Ltd (1981) 59 FLR 244; 38 ALR 187 ............... ACL.18.2340 Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd v TPC [1982] HCA 65; (1982) 152 CLR 460; 57 ALJR 1; 43 ALR 449; [1982] ATPR 40-320 ........................................................................ CCA.155.180, CCA.155.280

lxxviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Pioneer Electronics Aust Pty Ltd v Edge Technology Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 142 ................................... ACL.4.200 Pioneer Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Columbus Capital Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 78 ........................ CCA.84.120 Pivotel Satellite Pty Ltd v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 516 ..................................................... CCA.86.140 Platz v Creative’s Landscape Design Centre Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-947 ...................................... ACL.18.1940 Plimer v Roberts (1997) 80 FCR 303; 150 ALR 235; 39 IPR 257; [1998] ATPR 41-602 ................ ACL.18.240, ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540 Plum v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 790 .............................................................. ACL.18.1300 Plumbing Plus Bathroom Kitchen Laundry Pty Ltd, Re (A91523 ..................................................... CCA.90.1140 Plume v Federal Airports Corp [1997] ATPR 41-589 .................................................... CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.460 Polaris Communications Pty Ltd v Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 890 ................................ ACL.18.600 Polgardy v Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd (1981) 52 FLR 240; 34 ALR 391; [1981] ATPR 40-207 .................................................................................................................... CCA.163A.40, CCA.163A.60 Pollock v Hicks [2015] NSWCA 122 .......................................................................... ACL.224.120, ACL.224.140 Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd v ASX Operations Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 385; 93 ALR 523; [1990] ATPR 41-007 .................................................................................................. CCA.45.720, CCA.46.140 Port Waratah Coal Services Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-260 ....................................................... CCA.90.720 Port Waratah Coal Services Ltd, Re (A91110; 13 May 2009) ............................................................. CCA.90.940 Port Waratah Coal Services Ltd, Re (A91147; 9 December 2009) ...................................................... CCA.90.940 Poseidon Ltd v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1991) 105 ALR 25; [1992] ATPR 41-164 ......................... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.500, ACL.18.580, ACL.18.1440 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; 94 A Crim R 397; 71 ALJR 875; 145 ALR 408 ............................................................................................................................... CCA.76.640, CCA.79.240 Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; 14 ALR 635 ............................................................................ CCA.155.520 Potts v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-021 ................................................. ACL.236.240, CCA.82.180 Poulet Frais Pty Ltd v The Silver Fox Co Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 131; (2005) 220 ALR 211; [2005] ATPR 42-075 ........................................................................................ ACL.18.1580, CCA.86.740 Powercor Aust Ltd, Re (A91114; 23 April 2009) ........................................................... CCA.90.940, CCA.90.660 Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd, Re (A91261; 14 July 2011) ....................................... CCA.90.560, CCA.90.1220 Premium Milk Supply Pty Ltd, Re [2002] ATPR (Com) 50-288 ....................................................... CCA.90.1140 Pretorius v Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-166; [1992] ASC 56-150 .............. ACL.107.140 Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd v Kooee Communications Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 8 .................... ACL.18.580 Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 203; 142 ALR 527; 25 MVR 17; [1997] ATPR 41-554; [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-421 .............................. ACL.20.480, ACL.236.340, CCA.4K.20 Private Hospital Collective Bargaining Group, Re (A91293; 20 August 2012) ............ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.860 Pro Teeth Whitening (Aust) Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer [2013] FCA 1103 .............................................................................................................. 132J.40, ACL.122.20, ACL.122.80 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355; 72 ALJR 841; 153 ALR 490 ................................................................................................ CCA.45DD.20 Proprietary Medicines Assn of Aust & NZ, Re [1997] ATPR (Com) 50-246 ..................................... CCA.90.740 Prosperity Group International Pty Ltd v Queensland Communication Company Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1122 ......................................................... ACL.18.220, ACL.237.40, ACL.278.20, CCA.87.60 Province of Bombay v Bombay Municipal Corp [1947] AC 58 ...................................... CCA.2A.20, CCA.51.40 Pugh v Clarke Rubber Ltd [1993] ASC 55-712; [1993] ATPR 41-258 ............................................. ACL.107.140 Puxu Pty Ltd v Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd (1980) 43 FLR 405; 31 ALR 73; [1980] ATPR 40-135 ......................................................................................................................... ACL.18.920 Pye Industries Sales Pty Ltd v TPC [1979] ATPR 40-124 .......................................... CCA.76.1020, CCA.80.260 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v TPC [1982] FCA 17; (1982) 57 FLR 368 .......................................................... CCA.155.20 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v TPC [1983] HCA 9; (1983) 152 CLR 328; 57 ALJR 236; [1983] ATPR 40-341 ............. CCA.77.60, CCA.155.20, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.200, CCA.155.240, CCA.155.260, CCA.155.300, CCA.155.320

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Q QDSV Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC (1995) 59 FCR 301; 131 ALR 493; 32 IPR 1; [1995] ATPR 41-432 ................................................................................................... ACL.29.260, ACL.29.500, CCA.80.640 QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No 1) (1992) 36 FCR 386; 8 ACSR 245; 10 ACLC 1158; [1992] ATPR 41-178 ........................................................ CCA.50.600, CCA.80.40, CCA.80.660 QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) (1993) 42 FCR 255; 114 ALR 579; [1993] ATPR 41-226 .................................................................................................. CCA.4E.320, CCA.80.660 Qantas Airways Ltd v Aravco Ltd (1996) 185 CLR 43; 136 ALR 510; [1996] ATPR 41-486 ............ ACL.60.80 Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 66 FCR 246; 145 ALR 294; [1996] FCA 1483; [1996] ATPR 41-487 ............................................................................. ACL.18.2080, ACL.20.60, ACL.21.340 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-090 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-095 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-098 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-109 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-119 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1987] ATPR (Com) 50-056 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-120 ........................................................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [2003] ACompT 4; [2003] ATPR 41-972 ..................................................... CCA.109.20 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [2004] ACompT 9; [2004] ATPR 42-027; [2005] ATPR 42-065 ................ CCA.50.520, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.200, CCA.90.280, CCA.90.300, CCA.90.340, CCA.90.400CCA.90.1400, CCA.95AT.60 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re (A40107; 14 September 2006) .................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re (A91314; 26 March 2013) ........................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re (A91332; 27 March 2013) .................................. CCA.88.20, CCA.90.1400, CCA.91.60 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re (A91470 21 August 2015) ........................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re (A91502) ....................................................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd and American Airlines Inc, Re (A91265; 29 September 2011) ........................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd and British Airways plc, Re [1995] ATPR (Com) 50-184 ................................ CCA.90.1400 Qantas Airways Ltd and British Airways plc, Re (A91195; 31 March 2010) ................................... CCA.90.1400 Qantas Wentworth Holdings Ltd, Re A90150; (1978) TPRS 115.160 ............................ CCA.90.640, CCA.91.40 Qantas Airways Ltd, Re [2004] ACompT 9; [2004] ATPR 42-027 ..................................................... CCA.90.440 Qld Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation, Re (A91385; 18 December 2014) .............................. CCA.90.1040 Quad Consulting Pty Ltd v David R Bleakley and Associates Pty Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 86; 98 ALR 659; [1990] FCA 455 ............................................ ACL.18.500, ACL.18.620, ACL.18.640, ACL.234.40 Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10; (1976) 133 CLR 390 ......................................................................................................... CCA.4H.20, CCA.4M.20, CCA.45B.20 Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 499; [1999] ATPR 41-691 ..................... CCA.86.140 Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd v TPC [1981] FCA 138; (1981) 57 FLR 314 ................ ACL.2.160, CCA.4.500 Queensland Chicken Growers Association Inc, Re (A91347; 24 January 2013) ............................... CCA.90.1140 Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 ..... CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.120, CCA.4E.260, CCA.4.140, CCA.44K.100, CCA.44ZP.60, CCA.46.400, CCA.50.320, CCA.88.220, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.200, CCA.90.460, CCA.95AU.60, CCA.101.100, CCA.102.140, CCA.102.160, CCA.102.240, CCA.103.60, FMRPG.5.40 Queensland Gas Pipelines, Re [2001] ATPR (NCC) 70-008 ............................................................. CCA.44G.220 Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd, Re (1995) 132 ALR 225; [1995] ATPR 41-438 ............ CCA.4E.340, CCA.87B.100, CCA.4.140, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.1100, CCA.95AT.60, CCA.95AU.60, CCA.103.120 Queensland Newsagency System, Re [1998] ATPR (Com) 50-255 ................................................... CCA.90.1120 Queensland Newsagents Federation, Re (A91353; 11 July 2013) ........................................................ CCA.90.760 Queensland Newsagents Federation Ltd, Re (A91117; 22 April 2009) ....................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1120 Queensland Stock and Station Agents Assn, Re (1989) 95 FLR 250; 87 ALR 321; [1989] ATPR 40-938 ............................................. CCA.88.80, CCA.88.120, CCA.88.140, CCA.90.660, CCA.102.80

lxxx

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Queensland Timber Board, Re (1975) 24 FLR 205; 5 ALR 501; [1975] ATPR 40-005 ....................... CCA.4.80, CCA.88.200, CCA.101.140, CCA.102.80, CCA.102.260, CCA.103.100 Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177 F.C. 89/004; ATPR 40-925; [1989] HCA 6 ................... CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.120, CCA.4E.140, CCA.4E.240, CCA.4E.260, CCA.4E.340, CCA.4F.60, CCA.44B.100, CCA.163A.100, CCA.PTIIIA.20, CCA.46.60, CCA.46.100, CCA.46.160, CCA.46.180, CCA.46.200, CCA.46.220, CCA.46.280, CCA.46.400, CCA.46.420, CCA.46.460, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.800, CCA.50.320, CCA.50.380, CCA.87CA.20, CCA.151AJ.60, CCA.151AK.40, MG.4.60, MG.4.100, MG.4.100 Quigley v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2003] WASCA 228 ......................................... CCA.37.40 Quikfund (Australia) Pty Ltd v Airmark Consolidators Pty Ltd (2014) 22 FCR 13; 312 ALR 254; [2014] FCAFC 70 .................................................................. ACL.278.40, CCA.131A.20, CCA.131A.60 Quilted Products Manufacturers’ Assn of Australia, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-070 ....................... CCA.90.380, CCA.90.740 Quilted Products Manufacturers’ Assn of Australia, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-130 ........................ CCA.90.660 Quinlivan v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 175; (2004) 160 FCR 1; [2004] ATPR 42-010 ........ ACL.4.160, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1860, ACL.224.100, CCA.76.640 Quinn v Given (1980) 41 FLR 416; 29 ALR 88 .................................................................................. CCA.79.400

R R v Adams (1935) 53 CLR 563; 8 ABC 97; [1935] ALR 421; 9 ALJ 242 ................ ACL.CH4.20, CCA.79.100 R v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387; [1911] HCA 73 ..................... CCA.45.80, CCA.46.700 R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte 2HD Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 62; (1979) 144 CLR 45; 54 ALJR 94; 27 ALR 321 ............................................................................................... CCA.102.280 R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 ... CCA.4A.40, CCA.4.60, CCA.47.100, CCA.50.440, CCA.79.60 R v Bates [1911] 1 KB 964; [1911-13] All ER Rep Ext 1656; (1911) 80 LJKB 507 ........................ CCA.163.80 R v Credit Tribunal (SA); Ex parte GMAC (1977) 137 CLR 545; 51 ALJR 612; 14 ALR 257; [1977] HCA 34 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.18.80 R v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1220 ....................................................................................... ACL.29.240 R v Hunt (1979) 180 CLR 322; 25 ALR 497 ................................................................... ACL.21.160, ACL.22.60 R v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Pilkington ACI (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 142 CLR 113; 53 ALJR 230; 23 ALR 69 ..................................................... CCA.80.100, CCA.80.320 R v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Western Australian National Football League (Inc) (1979) 143 CLR 190; 53 ALJR 273; 23 ALR 439; [1979] ATPR 40-103 ................. CCA.4.560 R v Tiddy (1969) SASR 575 ........................................................................................... CCA.76.640, CCA.79.240 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974) 130 CLR 533; 48 ALJR 26; 2 ALR 371 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.4.560 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 8; (1970) 123 CLR 361; 44 ALJR 126; [1970] ALR 449 ................................................................................. CCA.30.20 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tooheys Ltd [1977] FCA 22; (1977) 31 FLR 1; 16 ALR 609; [1977] ATPR 40-054 ....................................................................................................... CCA.106.20 R & C Products Pty Ltd v Abundant Earth Pty Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 40; 55 ALR 38; [1984] ATPR 40-488 ..................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.920 R & C Products Pty Ltd (t/as Samuel Taylor) v SC Johnson & Sons Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 188; 113 ALR 487; 26 IPR 98; [1993] ATPR 41-234; [1993] ASC 56-226 ......... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.1920, ACL.18.2180, ACL.18.2360 R J Nuss Removals Pty Ltd, Re (CB00283) ................................................................................... CCA.93AB.100 REA Group Ltd v Real Estate 1 Ltd (2013) 217 FCR 327; 102 IPR 1; [2013] FCA 559 .............. ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2460 RG Tanna Coal Export Terminal Producers, Re (A91405; 16 April 2014) .................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.940, CCA.90.1220 RGC Mineral Sands Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 22 .................. CCA.4.540

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxi

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

RP Data Limited v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639; (2007) 221 FCR 392 ...... CCA.2A.160, CCA.4.540, CCA.46.440, CCA.46.720, CCA.46.920 Racing & Wagering WA, Re (A91460 12 February 2015) ................................................................. CCA.90.1000 Racing and Wagering Western Australia, Re (A91342; 17 April 2013) ............................................. CCA.90.1000 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318 ..... CCA.44ZZRD.40, CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRD.300, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.46.80 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70; 5 TPR 348; 48 ALR 361; [1983] ATPR 40-367 ..................................................................... CCA.44ZZRD.140, CCA.44ZZRD.300 Raestreet Pty Ltd v The Farmers’ Shop Pty Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, SA, 30 June 1998) ................ ACL.18.580 Rafferty v Madgwicks (2012) 203 FCR 1; 287 ALR 437; [2012] FCAFC 37 .......... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1580, CCA.51ACB.40, CCA.51ACB.100, CCICF.4.20, CCICF.5.20 Rafferty v Madgwicks [2012] FCAFC 37; (2012) 203 FCR 1; 287 ALR 437 ............ ACL.224.140, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.100 Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 725 ............................................................. ACL.18.1580 Rail Access Corp v New South Wales Minerals Council Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 517; 158 ALR 323; [1998] ATPR 41-663 .............................................................................................................. CCA.44B.100 Rakich v Bounce Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 289 .......................................................................... ACL.64.20 Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 898; (1999) 164 ALR 239; 44 IPR 481 ....................................................... ACL.18.120, ACL.18.380, ACL.236.40 Rana v University of South Australia [2007] FCA 816 ...................................................................... ACL.18.1720 Ransley v Black & Decker (A’asia) Pty Ltd (1977) 3 TPR 138; 2 TPC 343 .................. ACL.9.20, ACL.29.320, ACL.151.40 Ransley v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd [1980] ATPR 40-160 ............................................ ACL.29.280 Ransley v Spare Parts & Reconditioning Co Pty Ltd [1975] ATPR 40-055 ................. CCA.79.160, CCA.79.440 Ransom v Higgs [1974] 1 WLR 1594 ..................................................................................................... CCA.4.540 Rasell v Cavalier Marketing (Aust) Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 323 .............. ACL.54.160, ACL.55.20, ACL.55.140 Rasell v Garden City Vinyl Carpet Centre Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-152; [1991] ASC 56-036 .......................................................................................................................... ACL.54.160, ACL.55.140 Razdan v Westpac Banking Corp [2014] NSWCA 126 .......................................................................... ACL.4.220 Re ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159 .................................................. ACL.18.2120 Reading Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Birch Carroll & Coyle Ltd [2001] FCA 1752; [2002] ATPR 41-853 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.86.460 Readymix Holdings International Pte Ltd v Wieland Process Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1480 ............................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1640 Real Estate Institute of Australia Ltd, Re [2000] ACompT 2; [2000] ATPR 41-775 ......................... CCA.90.740, CCA.90.1200, CCA.101.160 Real Estate Institute of Queensland, Re [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-057 ..................... CCA.90.1200, CCA.90.1280, CCA.90.1420 Real Estate Institute of South Australia, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-075 ......................................... CCA.90.1200 Real Estate Institute of South Australia, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-218 ................ CCA.90.1200, CCA.90.1420 Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Inc, Re (A91280; 19 April 2012) .................................... CCA.90.1200 Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory, Re [1985] ATPR (Com) 50-087 ................ CCA.90.320, CCA.90.1200, CCA.90.1280, CCA.90.1420 Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-120 ................ CCA.90.320, CCA.90.1200, CCA.90.1420 Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-151 ............... CCA.90.1200 Really Useful Group Ltd, The v Gordon & Gotch Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-336 ................................... ACL.18.2240 Reardon v Morley Ford Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 401; 33 ALR 417; [1980] ATPR 40-190 .................. ACL.35.80 Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873 ................................................. ACL.18.1000 Recruitment & Consulting Services Association Ltd, Re (A91388; 12 February 2014) ..................... CCA.90.740 Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228; (2001) 53 IPR 481 ........................................................................................... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.2200, ACL.18.2280

lxxxii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Refrigerant Reclaim Aust Ltd, Re (A91515 .......................................................................................... CCA.90.880 Refrigerated Express Lines (A/Asia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat & Livestock Corp (1979) 42 FLR 204 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.77.60, CCA.77.100 Refrigerated Express Lines (A/asia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat and Livestock Corp (No 2) (1980) 44 FLR 455; 29 ALR 333; [1980] ATPR 40-156 ...................................... CCA.10.01.20, CCA.51.300 Regents Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 218; 42 IPR 421; [1988] ATPR 41-647 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.4E.240 Regents Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 218; 42 IPR 421; [1998] ATPR 41-647 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.460 Reiffel v ACN 075 839 226 Ltd [2003] FCA 194; [2003] ATPR 41-934 .................... ACL.236.40, ACL.18.420, ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1440 Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 .................................................................... CCA.76.160 Remote Retail Services Pty Ltd, Re (CB00208-CB00226) ............................................................. CCA.93AB.100 Rent-A-Ute Pty Ltd v Golden 44 Pty Ltd (1987) 9 IPR 12; [1987] ATPR 40-800 .......................... ACL.18.2460 Rentokil Pty Ltd v Lee (1995) 66 SASR 301; [1996] ATPR 41-451 .................................................. CCA.51.160 Resources New South Wales, Re [2002] ATPR (Com) 50-291 .......................................................... CCA.90.1060 Resources New South Wales, Re (variation approved 6 November 2002) ......................................... CCA.91A.80 Retail Energy Market Co Ltd, Re (A91136; 26 August 2009) ...................................... CCA.90.840, CCA.90.940 Retail Liquor Store Owners Assn, Re (1982) 1 TPR 182 .................................................................... CCA.90.320 Retail Tobacco Sellers’ Assn of Vic, Re [1982] ATPR (Com) 50-040 ................................................ CCA.90.320 Retirees WA Inc, Re (A91279; 12 April 2012). .................................................................................. CCA.90.1160 Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477; 68 ALR 77; 6 IPR 607; [1986] ATPR (Digest) 46-010 ...... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.380, ACL.18.400, ACL.18.660, CCA.4.160 Rice Growers Co-op Mills Ltd v Bannerman (1981) 53 FLR 408; 35 ALR 553 ............................. CCA.155.420 Ricegrowers Ltd v Real Foods Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 639 ........................................... ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2280 Rich v ASIC [2004] HCA 42; (2004) 220 CLR 129 ............................. ACL.224.280, ACL.248.20, CCA.76.700 Richardson & Wrench (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Ligon No 174 Pty Ltd (1994) 123 ALR 681; [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-133 ......................................................... ACL.224.100, ACL.224.140, CCA.75B.80 Ricochet Pty Ltd v Equity Trustees Executor & Agency Co Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 229; 113 ALR 30; [1993] ATPR 41-236 ....................................................................................................... ACL.236.120 Riley McKay Pty Ltd v Bannerman [1977] FCA 7; (1977) 31 FLR 129; 15 ALR 561; [1977] ATPR 40-036 .... ACL.29.80, CCA.155.20, CCA.155.60, CCA.155.140, CCA.155.200, CCA.155.240 Rio Tinto Aluminium Ltd, Re (A90215-7; 2 June 2010) ..................................................................... CCA.90.940 Rio Tinto Aluminium Ltd, Re (A91205) ............................................................................................... CCA.90.840 Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd, Re (A91410; 21 August 2014) .............................. CCA.90.940, CCA.90.1220 Rio Tinto Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 6; 246 ALR 1; [2008] ATPR 42-214 ...................................................................................... CCA.44F.20, CCA.44G.20, CCA.44G.80 Ritter v Godfrey (1920) 2 KB 47 .................................................................................... CCA.79.380, CCA.86.600 Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158; 95 FLR 418; 88 ALR 217; 12 IPR 417 ................................................................................................................................ CCA.86.440 Rivercity Motorway Finance Pty Ltd v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 713 ........ CCA.87CB.40 Riverstone Computer Services Pty Limited v IBM Global Financing Australia Limited [2002] FCA 1608 ........................................................................................................... CCA.4E.160, MG.4.100 Rizzo v Fitzgerald (1988) 19 FCR 175; 83 ALR 169; [1989] ATPR 40-890; [1989] ASC 55-681 .................................................................................................................................................. ACL.43.40 Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, Re (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2 ......................................................................... CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.180, CCA.44K.60 Robert Fitzgerald & Assocs, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-135 ............................................................. CCA.90.740 Robert Hicks Pty Ltd (t/a Auto Fashions Aust) v Melway Publishing Pty Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 627; [1999] ATPR 41-668 ................................................................. CCA.4E.340, CCA.86.480, CCA.103.120 Robin Pty Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1019; (1999) 179 ALR 449; [1999] ATPR 41-710 ............................................ ACL.18.240, ACL.18.1720, ACL.18.1740, CCA.4.540

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxiii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Rochfort v TPC [1982] HCA 66; (1982) 153 CLR 134; 57 ALJR 31; 43 ALR 659; [1982] ATPR 40-322 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.60 Rod Investments (Vic) Pty Ltd v Abeyratne [2010] VSC 457 ............................................................. CCA.86.360 Ron Hodgson (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Westco Motors (Distributors) Pty Ltd (1980) 29 ALR 307; [1980] ATPR 40-143 ................................................................................................................. CCA.48.180 Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18 ................................................................................................... ACL.236.40 Roses Only & Lush Pty Ltd v Mark Lyons Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 593; [1999] FCA 1000; [1999] ATPR 41-706 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.2180 Roumanus v Orchard Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 775 .................. ACL.236.240, CCA.82.180 Royal Automobile Club of Qld, Re (A91358; 29 May 2013) .............................................................. CCA.90.980 Ruaro v Ferrari [2007] FCA 2022 ........................................................................................................... ACL.64.20 Ruaro v Holcomm Marine Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 174 ......................................................................... ACL.60.80 Rumcoast Holdings Pty Ltd v Prospero Publishing Pty Ltd (1999) 152 FLR 240; 48 IPR 75; [1999] ATPR 41-724 ............................................................................................... ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.2460 Rumcoast Holdings Pty Ltd v Prospero Publishing Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 61; [2000] ATPR 41-762; [2000] ASAL 55-044 .............................................................................................. ACL.18.1100 Rumpe v Camrol Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-522 .................................................................................... ACL.236.60 Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Re (A91376; 17 April 2013) ......................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.860, CCA.90.1160 Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445 ............. CCA.45DD.20, CCA.45DD.40, CCA.45DD.60, CCA.45DD.80, CCA.45DD.100 Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883 ........................ ACL.24.40, CCA.4D.120, CCA.4F.80, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.420, CCA.46.500, CCA.86C.60, CCA.86C.120, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120, CCA.76.440 Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 310 ....................................................................................... CCA.86.600 Rural Press Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 53; 203 ALR 217; 78 ALJR 274; [2003] HCA 75 .......... CCA.4.140, CCA.4D.160, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4E.340, CCA.45D.200, CCA.163A.160, CCA.45.280, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.340, CCA.45.420, CCA.46.420, CCA.46.480, CCA.50.120, CCA.50.380; CCA.76.80, CCA.76.140, CCA.80.40, CCA.86.220, MG.3.40 Rural Traders Co-op (WA) Ltd, Re (1979) 37 FLR 244 ... CCA.90.60, CCA.90.120, CCA.90.200, CCA.90.220, CCA.102.80, CCA.102.100 Russian Commercial & Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438; [1921] All ER Rep 329 ....................................................................................................... CCA.163A.140 Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177; (1999) 102 LGERA 123; [1999] ATPR 46-191; [1999] ASAL (Digest) 55-023 ..... ACL.7.20, ACL.54.160, ACL.55.140, ACL.138.120, ACL.142.60

S S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Life Saving Pty Ltd (1998) 88 FCR 354; 168 ALR 396; 43 IPR 581; [1998] ATPR 41-667 .......... ACL.18.120, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.1980, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2400 S & U Constructions Pty Ltd v Westworld Property Holdings Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-854 ........ ACL.18.1860, CCA.76.120 SPI Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1035 ........................................ CCA.138.80 SA Brewing Holdings Ltd v Baxt (1989) 23 FCR 357; 89 ALR 105; [1989] ATPR 40-967 ... CCA.44ZZRU.20, CCA.45.440, CCA.155.20, CCA.155.100, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.200, CCA.155.320 SAGASCO Resources Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-118 .............................................................. CCA.90.1220 SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 169 ALR 1; 48 IPR 593; [1999] FCA 1821; [2000] AIPC 91-536 .................................................................................. ACL.18.80, ACL.18.120 SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 169; [1999] FCA 1027; [1999] AIPC 91-507 ........................................................................... ACL.18.440, ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2460 SC Johnson & Son Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1266 ................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.960, ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1080 SCI Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd [1983] ATPR 40-381 ........................ CCA.86.420

lxxxiv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

SMEC Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 557 ................................................................................................................................ CCA.138.80 SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116 ................ ACL.18.1580, ACL.18.1920, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4E.220, CCA.4E.340, CCA.51ACB.100, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.760 SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2004] FCA 937; [2004] ATPR 42-016 ............................ CCA.4L.20 SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417 ............. CCA.4L.20, CCA.47.220, CCA.4.500, CCA.45.480, CCA.47.640, CCA.47.660 SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180 .................... CCA.47.80, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.660 SWF Hoists and Industrial Equipment Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Commission (1990) 6 ANZ Ins Cas 61-002; [1990] ATPR 41-045 ...................... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1680, ACL.29.540, ACL.236.220, CCA.82.160 St George Cabs Co-op Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-126 ............................................................. CCA.90.1400 St Justins Properties Pty Ltd v Rule Holdings Pty Ltd (1980) 40 FLR 282; [1980] ATPR 40-146 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.80.200, CCA.86.80 St Lukes Health Insurance v MBF Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-428 ............. ACL.18.460, ACL.18.1620, ACL.18.1680, ACL.247.20, CCA.80.540 St Vincent’s Health Aust Ltd, Re (A91099; 29 January 2009) ...................................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.860 St Vincent’s Health Australia Ltd, Re (A91295; 12 September 2012) .......................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.860 Saints Gallery Pty Ltd v Plummer (1988) 80 ALR 525; [1988] ATPR 40-882; [1988] ASC 55-671 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1240 Sammy Russo Supplies Pty Ltd v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-641 ............ CCA.86.160 Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 227 .......... ACL.18.780, ACL.18.1420, ACL.18.1600 Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 477 .................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1420, ACL.18.1600 San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister administering the Environment Planning and Assessment Act (1986) 162 CLR 340; 61 ALJR 41; 60 LGRA 405; 68 ALR 161 ........................................... ACL.236.80 Sanders v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1332 .......................................................................... ACL.18.220 Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 236 ................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.380 Sanofi-Aventis Aust Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846 .................... ACL.18.180, ACL.18.1620, ACL.236.40 Sanrod Pty Ltd v Dainford Ltd (1984) 54 ALR 179; [1984] ATPR 40-464 ............. ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.160 Santos Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-074 ....................................................................................... CCA.90.1020 Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1086 ................................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.2180 Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 91 ..................................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.2180 Schepis v Elders IXL Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-759 ................................................................................. ACL.18.1640 Schneider Electric (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 2; (2003) 127 FCR 170; 196 ALR 611; [2003] ATPR 41-957 .... CCA.44ZZRJ.160, CCA.76.360, CCA.76.520, CCA.76.640, CCA.79.340 Schwabe Pharma (Aust) Pty Ltd v AusPharm.Net.Au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 868 .............................. ACL.18.1620 Seadvise Pty Ltd, Re (A91406; 11 June 2014) ............................................................. CCA.90.880, CCA.90.1000 Seafolly Pty Ltd v Madden (2012) 297 ALR 337; 98 IPR 389; [2012] FCA 1346; [2012] ATPR 42-424 .................................................................. ACL.18.400, ACL.18.2020, ACL.18.2200, CCA.6.60 Seamen’s Union of Australia v Utah Development Co (1978) 144 CLR 120; 53 ALJR 83; 22 ALR 291; [1978] ATPR 40-090 ................................................................................................. CCA.45D.80 Secretary of State for the Home Department, Re; Ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450; [1999] 2 WLR 483; [1999] 2 All ER 42 ..................................................................................................... CCA.86.380 Security Group Co-op Housing Soc Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-106 ......................................... CCA.90.980

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4; (1994) 179 CLR 332; 68 ALJR 313; 120 ALR 16; [1994] ATPR 41-301 ......... ACL.18.480, ACL.18.1940, ACL.236.80, ACL.236.400, ACL.236.420, ACL.236.560, CCA.82.240, CCA.82.340 Sensis Pty Ltd v McMaster-Fay [2005] NSWCA 163 ............................................................................ ACL.60.80 Sent v Jet Corp Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 540; 60 ALJR 503; 66 ALR 73; [1986] ATPR 40-704 ................... ACL.237.20, ACL.237.140, ACL.237.160, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.360, CCA.87.440 Service Station Assn Ltd v Berg Bennett & Assocs Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 84; 117 ALR 393; 27 IPR 23; [1993] ATPR 41-266 ........................................................................................... ACL.18.2400 Services Sydney Pty Ltd, Re [2005] ACompT 7; (2005) 227 ALR 140; [2006] ATPR 42-099 ........ CCA.44F.20, CCA.44G.20, CCA.44G.80, CCA.44K.120 Sest v Copperart Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-945 .................................................................................... CCA.79.160 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd v ACCC [1998] ATPR 41-622 ....................................................................... CCA.91.100 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR 41-357 .......... CCA.44ZP.40, CCA.90.60, CCA.90.100, CCA.90.180, CCA.90.420, CCA.90.660, CCA.90.1120, CCA.102.80 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd, Re [1998] ATPR 41-666 ........ CCA.91B.60, CCA.91B.80, CCA.91B.120, CCA.102.80 Seven Cable Television Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [2000] FCA 350; (2000) 171 ALR 89; [2000] ATPR (Digest) 46-202 ..................................................................................................... CCA.152AR.40 Seven Network Ltd v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 267; (2004) 140 FCR 170; 212 ALR 31; 62 IPR 490; [2004] ATPR 42-035 ...... CCA.155.20, CCA.155.100, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.140, CCA.155.200, CCA.155.320, CCA.155.580 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062; [2007] ATPR (Digest) 46-274 ... CCA.4E.100, CCA.45.760, CCA.50.340, MG.4.80 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160 .............. CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.100, CCA.4F.40, CCA.45.220, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.760, CCA.46.60, CCA.46.240, CCA.46.480, CCA.46.980 Seven Network Ltd, Re [2004] ACompT 5; (2004) 182 FLR 169; [2004] ATPR 41-986 .................. CCA.37.20, CCA.37.40, CCA.42.20 Seven Network Ltd (No 2), Re [2004] ACompT 6; [2004] ATPR 41-987 ............................................ CCA.37.40 Seven Network Ltd (No 4), Re [2004] ACompT 11; (2004) 187 FLR 373; [2005] ATPR 42-056 .............................................................................. CCA.152ATA.20, CCA.152ATA.40, CCA.152AR.60 Shahid v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2007] FCA 693; (2007) 72 IPR 555 ...................... CCA.4.560 Shahid v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2008) 168 FCR 46; 248 ALR 267; [2008] FCAFC 72 ....... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1480, ACL.18.1840. ACL.29.320, ACL.34.40, ACL.34.60, CCA.4.560 Shannahan v TPC [1991] FCA 95; (1991) 28 FCR 239 ................... CCA.155.100, CCA.155.180, CCA.155.580 Sharp v Cossack Pearls Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1477 ........................................................... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.500 Sheen v Geo Cornish Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 162; 34 FLR 466; 22 ALR 155 ............................. CCA.79.420 Sheldrick v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1794; (1998) 89 IR 206 ............................... ACL.4.220 Shopping Centre Council of Australia Ltd, Re (A91049; 6 February 2013) .............. CCA.90.880, CCA.90.1240 Shoshana Pty Ltd v 10th Cantanae Pty Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 285; 79 ALR 279; 11 IPR 249; [1987] ATPR 40-851 .................................................................................................. CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Siam Polyethylene Co Ltd v Minister of State for Home Affairs (No 3) [2009] FCA 839 ................ CCA.86.120 Siddons Pty Ltd v Stanley Works Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 630; [1990] ATPR 41-044; [1990] ASC 55-992 .................................................................. ACL.18.1640, ACL.29.260, ACL.29.340, ACL.29.500 Siddons Pty Ltd v Stanley Works Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 14; 99 ALR 497; 20 IPR 1; [1991] ATPR 41-111 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.1640, ACL.29.340 Sigma Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd v Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 242 ...................... ACL.2.160 Silver Top Taxi Service Ltd, Re [1995] ATPR (Com) 50-209 ................................... CCA.90.1100, CCA.90.1400 Sims v Chong [2015] FCAFC 80 ........................................................................................................ ACL.236.180 Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136; (2009) 260 ALR 244; [2009] ATPR 42-297 ......................................... CCA.4E.160, CCA.5.160, CCA.44ZZRD.220, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.580 Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159 ................................. CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.80, CCA.4E.240, CCA.4E.340, CCA.46.260 Singapore Airlines Ltd, Re (A91542) .................................................................................................. CCA.90.1400

lxxxvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v ACCC (2012) 287 ALR 249; [2012] FCAFC 20 ................ ACL.18.2020, ACL.29.180, ACL.34.60, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.420, ACL.214.20, ACL.224.220, CCA.76.280, CCA.76.360 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [2004] FCA 859 ............................................................... ACL.18.2020 Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2002] FCA 1152; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-226 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.2A.160 Sisters of Charity, Re (2004) A30216 .................................................................................................... CCA.90.860 Sitmar Cruises Ltd v Carnival Cruise Lines Inc [1986] ATPR 40-728 .............................................. ACL.18.2340 Skinner v Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd [2009] FCA 1554 .......................................................... CCA.87CG.20 Smith v Capewell (1979) 142 CLR 509; 53 ALJR 725; 26 ALR 507 ............................. CCA.2A.80, CCA.4.100 Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1987] HCA 48; (1987) 164 CLR 513; 61 ALJR 539; 19 ATR 274; 74 ALR 411 ............................................................................................................ ACL.4.40 Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1884) LR 28 Ch D 7 ........................................................... ACL.18.1900 Smith v State Bank of NSW Ltd (2001) 188 ALR 729; [2001] FCA 946; [2001] ATPR 41-829 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1300 Smolonogov v O’Brien (1982) 67 FLR 311; 44 ALR 347; 2 TPR 223; [1982] ATPR 40-312 FC .................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.60, CCA.6.120 Smorgon v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1976] HCA 53; (1976) 134 CLR 475 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.155.140, CCA.155.360 Snoid v Handley (1981) 54 FLR 202; 38 ALR 383 ........................................................................... ACL.18.1180 Snyman v Cooper (1990) 24 FCR 433; 91 ALR 209; 16 IPR 585; [1990] ATPR 40-993 ................ ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1920, ACL.18.2440, CCA.6.60, CCA.6.120 Snyman v Cooper (No 2) (1990) 25 FCR 470; 97 ALR 653; 19 IPR 471; [1991] AIPC 90-753; [1991] ATPR 41-068 ...................................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1920, ACL.18.2440, CCA.6.120 Sodastream Ltd v Electronics (Broken Hill) Pty Ltd (1985) 60 ALR 427; [1985] ATPR 40-572 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.47.260 Softwood Tasmania Joint Venture, Re (A91120; 29 July 2009) ................................ CCA.90.1020, CCA.90.1140 Solanowski v Penrith City Council [2002] NSWCA 175 ...................................................................... CCA.4L.20 Solitare Pty Ltd v Quikfund (Aust) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1384 ........................................................... CCA.86A.40 Sonic Healthcare Ltd/Healthscope Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 28 August 2013) .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.50.180 Sons of Gwalia Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160; [2007] HCA 1 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.18.520 South Australian Farmers Federation, Re (A91294; 14 June 2012) ............................ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 South East Queensland Electricity Corp, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-215 ................. CCA.90.940, CCA.90.1360 South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [1999] FCA 1710; (1999) 169 ALR 120; [1999] ATPR 41-728 .................................................................................... CCA.45.440 South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 .............. CCA.4D.120, CCA.4D.140, CCA.4F.80, CCA.44ZZRD.100, CCA.45.200, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.540, CCA.47.80, CCA.88.60 Southern Cross Beverages Pty Ltd, Re (1981) 50 FLR 176; [1981] ATPR 40-200 .... CCA.47.480, CCA.90.420, CCA.93.280, CCA.102.240 Southern Farmers Co-op Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-102 ................................... CCA.90.540, CCA.90.1140 Southern Metropolitan Regional Council, Re (A91518 ...................................................................... CCA.90.1060 Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd v Tabellz Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1019 ................. ACL.18.2320 Specialised Container Transport, Re [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004 ......................... CCA.44B.100, CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.140, CCA.44G.160, CCA.44G.180 Specialised Container Transport No 2, Re [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-006 ................ CCA.44G.140, CCA.44G.160 Specsavers Pty Ltd v The Optical Superstore Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 566 ............ ACL.18.80, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760, ACL.18.900 Spedley Securities Ltd v Bank of New Zealand [1991] ATPR 41-143; [1991] ASC 56-112 ............ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1220, ACL.18.1540 Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 ...................................................................... CCA.86.260 Speedo Knitting Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1981) 57 FLR 74; 37 ALR 417 .......................... CCA.91B.60

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Spice v Westpac Banking Corp (unreported, Forster J, No G49/1987, 1 September 1989) .............. ACL.18.600, ACL.236.60 Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd v Paul’s International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] FCA 1162 ............................... ACL.29.480 Squibb & Sons Pty Ltd v Tully Corp Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-691 ............................ ACL.243.60, CCA.87.300 Stalyce Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Cetec Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 278; [2002] ATPR 41-866 ............... CCA.86A.40 Standard Oil Co of New Jersey v United States 221 US 1 (1911) ........................................................ CCA.46.20 Stanford v DePuy International Ltd (No 6) [2016] FCA 1452 ............................................................ CCA.86.360 Stanwell Corporation Ltd, Re (A91448 29 January 2015) ............................................... CCA.90.840, CCA.91.60 Star Alliance, Re (A91300; 25 July 2012) .......................................................................................... CCA.90.1400 Star Micronics Pty Ltd v Five Star Computers Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 225; [1990] ATPR 41-056; [1990] AIPC 90-717 ......................................................... ACL.18.1400, ACL.18.1780, ACL.18.2180 Starborne Holdings Pty Ltd v Radferry Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-634 .............................................. ACL.236.500 State Energy Commission of Western Australia v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 1; [1987] ATPR 40-773 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.86.80 State Government Insurance Commission v JM Insurance Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-465 .................. ACL.18.700 State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1990) 19 IPR 232; [1990] ATPR 41-052 .......... ACL.18.1340 State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1991) 28 FCR 511; 101 ALR 259; 21 IPR 65; [1991] ATPR 41-110; [1991] ASC 56-067 .............. CCA.2B.200, CCA.4E.300, CCA.4.260, CCA.4.560, CCA.86.440 State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 60 FLR 165; 41 ALR 279; [1982] ATPR 40-282; (1982) 1 TPR 326 ..................................... CCA.2B.20, CCA.2B.80, CCA.2B.200, CCA.4.260, CCA.155.500 State of Illinois v Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co [1991] 1 Trade Cases 69,455 ......................... CCA.44G.120, CCA.PTIIIA.40 Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255 ........... CCA.4E.340, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.560, CCA.47.80, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.300, CCA.47.660 Stegenga v J Corp Pty Ltd [1999] ATPR 41-695 .................................................................................. ACL.139.20 Steiner v Magic Carpet Tours Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-490 ............................................................. ACL.236.360 Sterling v TPC (1981) 51 FLR 1; 35 ALR 59; [1981] ATPR 40-212 ........................... ACL.18.1180, CCA.80.20 Sterling Winthrop Pty Ltd v R & C Products Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-308 ........... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.2180, ACL.18.2200 Sterling Winthrop Pty Ltd v The Boots Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 361; [1995] ATPR 41-433 .......................................................................................................................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760 Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489; 81 ALR 463 ........................................................................... ACL.20.60 Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421 ................................... ACL.18.1300, CCA.5.120, CCA.5.140 Sternberg v The Queen (1953) 88 CLR 646 ........................................................................................... ACL.29.80 Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752 ........ CCA.45.280, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.460, CCA.45.740, CCA.46.440, CCA.46.960, CCA.47.440, CCA.47.640, CCA.93.20 Stock & Station Agents’ Assn of New South Wales, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-129 ...................... CCA.91B.60 Stock Exchange of Melbourne Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-104 ................................................ CCA.90.1300 Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444; 97 IR 76; (2000) 177 ALR 501 ....................................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.60 Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657 ................................ CCA.4D.80, CCA.4D.120, CCA.4D.200, CCA.4F.40, CCA.45.240 Stone & Wood Group Pty Ltd v Intellectual Property Development Corp Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 820 .......................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.2280 Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1; (2009) 223 FLR 245 ................. CCA.4.500, ACL.18.60, CCA.4.540 Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 468; 45 ALJR 485; [1972] ALR 3 ................ CCA.1.20 Strike v Dive Queensland Inc [1998] ATPR 41-605 ............................................................................ CCA.86A.40 Stuart Alexander & Co (Interstate) Pty Ltd v Blenders Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 307; 37 ALR 161 ....................................................................................................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.700, ACL.18.1080

lxxxviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Su (t/as Ausviet Travel) v Direct Flights International Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1844; [2000] ATPR 41-750 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.160 Su (t/as Ausviet Travel) v Direct Flights International Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] ATPR 41-677 ............ CCA.86.160 Subway Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Thorpe [2000] QSC 99 .............................................................. CCICF.5.20 Suncorp-Metway Ltd, Re (A91213; 13 September 2010) .................................................................... CCA.90.700 Suncorp-Metway Ltd, Re (A91508; 1 October 2015) ........................................................................... CCA.90.700 Suncorp Metway/Promina (ACCC Competition Assessment, 12 January 2007) ................................. CCA.50.240 Supetina Pty Ltd v Lombok Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 563; [1986] ATPR 40-716 .... ACL.18.1860, ACL.243.180, CCA.76.120 Surge Licensing Inc v Pearson (1991) 21 IPR 228; [1991] ATPR 41-119; [1991] ASC 56-077 ...................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1380, ACL.18.2160 Sutton v AJ Thompson Pty Ltd (in liq) (1987) 73 ALR 233; [1987] ATPR 40-789; [1987] ASC 55-583 ................................................................................................................... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.420 Swan v Downes (1978) 34 FLR 36; [1978] ATPR 40-068 ....... ACL.36.20, ACL.36.60, CCA.4.540, CCA.6.120 Sweetman v Bradfield Management Services Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-290 ....................................... ACL.18.600 Swift v Westpac Banking Corp [1995] ATPR 41-401 .................................................... ACL.20.300, ACL.21.340 Sydney Airport Corp Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 146; 155 FCR 124; 232 ALR 454; [2007] ATPR 42-142 .................................... CCA.44G.220, CCA.44H.80, CCA.44H.100 Sydney Airports Corp Ltd, Re [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754 ....... CCA.44B.60, CCA.44B.100, CCA.44F.20, CCA.44G.100, CCA.44G.120, CCA.44G.140 Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd, Re [1988] ATPR (Com) 50-078 ....................................................... CCA.90.1300 Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-112 ........................................................ CCA.90.1300 Sydney Medical Service Co-operative Ltd v Lakemba Medical Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1188 ................................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.700 Sydney Medical Service Co-operative Ltd v Lakemba Medical Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 763 ........................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1620, ACL.18.2460 Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 157; (2002) 55 IPR 354 .............. ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2200, ACL.18.2280, CCA.86.480, CCA.138.140 Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1997) 151 ALR 579; [1998] ATPR 41-608 .......... ACL.2.120, ACL.19.100, CCA.4.340, CCA.4.500, CCA.4.540 Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 746; (1999) 88 FCR 511; 158 ALR 710; [1999] ATPR 41-699 ................... ACL.4.60, ACL.4.80, ACL.4.200, ACL.4.220, ACL.18.1300, ACL.236.80, CCA.138.80 Synavant Australia Pty Ltd v Harris [2001] FCA 1517 .................................................. CCA.4M.20, CCA.51.160

T TAB Agents Association of NSW, Re (A91430; 13 August 2014) ...................................................... CCA.90.760 TAB Ltd, Re (A91454 12 February 2015) .......................................................................................... CCA.90.1000 TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Ilvariy Pty Ltd (2008) 71 NSWLR 323; [2008] NSWCA 9; Aust Torts Reports 81-931 ............................................................................................ ACL.18.60, ACL.19.100 TGI Friday’s Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc (1999) 45 IPR 43; [1999] ATPR 41-683 ......... ACL.18.2460 TLS Assn Pty Ltd, Re (A91250; 24 February 2011) .......................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1080, CCA.90.1240, CCA.90.1320 TMA Australia Pty Ltd v Indect Electronics & Distribution GmbH [2015] NSWCA 343 ................. ACL.21.340 TN Lucas Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1984) 1 FCR 110; 52 ALR 467; [1984] ATPR 40-440 .......................................................................................... ACL.18.400, ACL.29.360, ACL.30.20 TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Fels [1992] ATPR 41-190; (1993) 1 TPLJ 53n ................... CCA.155.20, CCA.155.100 TOTE Tasmania Pty Ltd ACTTAB Ltd and Racing and Wagering Western Australia, Re (A91123; 9 September 2009) .......................................................................................................... CCA.90.1020 TPC v APM Investments Pty Ltd (1983) 74 FLR 276; [1983] ATPR 40-434 ................................. CCA.87CA.20 TPC v Abbco Ice Works Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 96; 123 ALR 503; 14 ACSR 359; [1994] ATPR 41-342 ............................................................................................................ CCA.77.100, CCA.155.260 TPC v Advance Bank Australia Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-229; [1993] ASC 56-218 .......... ACL.29.480, ACL.214.20

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

TPC v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd (1981) 55 FLR 125; 35 ALR 105; [1981] ATPR 40-204 ....................................................................................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd (No 5) (1981) 60 FLR 38; 37 ALR 256; [1981] ATPR 40-241 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.76.600 TPC v Ampol Petroleum (Vic) Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 578; 126 ALR 111; [1994] ATPR 41-344 .............................................................................................................................................. CCA.155.520 TPC v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd (1978) 19 ALR 730; [1978] ATPR 40-074 ................................ CCA.84.80 TPC v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-772 ................... CCA.48.100, CCA.48.280, CCA.76.340 TPC v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 32 FLR 305; 20 ALR 31; 4 TPC 13; [1978] ATPR 40-071 .......................................................................................................... CCA.50.580 TPC v Arnotts Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-979 ........................................................................ CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 TPC v Arnotts Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 638; [1990] ATPR 41-003 ............................................................ CCA.50.720 TPC v Arnotts Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 657; 16 IPR 417; [1990] ATPR 41-062 .................... CCA.4.40, CCA.50.100 TPC v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 299; [1988] ATPR 40-876 ...................... ACL.18.1200, ACL.224.120, CCA.4E.60, CCA.4E.320, CCA.5.160, CCA.50.720, CCA.76.140, CCA.80.280, CCA.81.140 TPC v Australian Autoglass Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-881 .................................................................. CCA.79.160 TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001 ....... ACL.44.80, CCA.4.500, CCA.5.20, CCA.44ZZRD.160, CCA.50.80, CCA.50.100, CCA.50.440 TPC v BP Australia Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 499; 62 ALR 151; [1985] ATPR 40-638 .............................. CCA.48.260 TPC v BP Australia Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-652 ............................................................... CCA.48.100, CCA.48.260 TPC v BTR Nylex Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-075 ....................................................................................... CCA.50.720 TPC v Bamix Australia Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-534 ......................................................................... CCA.48.340 TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd [1980] ATPR 40-161 ........... CCA.48.140, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.260, CCA.96.280, CCA.97.20 TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 47; 44 FLR 149 ............................................ CCA.76.640 TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1979) 44 FLR 145 ... ACL.35.60, CCA.48.140, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.260, CCA.96.280, CCA.97.20 TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [1980] ATPR 40-161 ............................................... ACL.35.60 TPC v Bowral Brickworks Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 552; 55 ALR 733; [1984] ATPR 40-480 ............. CCA.4A.60, CCA.50.440, CCA.50.720 TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] ATPR 41-406 ..................................................................... CCA.45.740 TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 3) [1995] ATPR 41-415 ............................................... CCA.45.740, CCA.76.440 TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) (1995) 58 FCR 426; 131 ALR 581; [1995] ATPR 41-425 .......... CCA.157.20 TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 6) [1995] ATPR 41-431 ..................................................................... CCA.45.740 TPC v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (Woollard) [1994] FCA 1368 ....................... CCA.76.840, CCA.155.380 TPC v CSBP & Farmers Ltd (1980) 53 FLR 135; [1980] ATPR 40-151 ........................................... CCA.46.640 TPC v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 521; [1991] ATPR 41-076 ....................... CCA.45.420, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.380, CCA.76.400, CCA.76.1040 TPC v Calderton Corp Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-306 ............................................................................. ACL.32.60 TPC v Caravella [1994] ATPR 41-293 .................................................................................................. CCA.79.160 TPC v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1990) 24 FCR 532; [1990] ATPR 41-037 .......................... CCA.76.440 TPC v Commodore Business Machines Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-976 ............................................... CCA.79.160 TPC v Cook-On Gas Products Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-560 .............................. CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.380 TPC v Cue Design Pty Ltd (1996) 85 A Crim R 500; [1996] ATPR 41-475 .............. ACL.18.980, ACL.29.480, ACL.214.20, CCA.45D.300, CCA.87B.160, CCA.76.240, CCA.79.460 TPC v Culley [1983] ATPR 40-399 ....................................................................................................... CCA.76.380 TPC v Dalgety Australia Ltd (1973) 22 FLR 62 .................................................................................. CCA.98.100 TPC v David Jones (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 446; 64 ALR 67; [1986] ATPR 40-671 ... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.440 TPC v Dunlop Australia Ltd [1980] FCA 76; (1980) 43 FLR 434; 30 ALR 469; [1980] ATPR 40-167 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.48.140

xc

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172 ... CCA.44ZZRD.260, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.100, CCA.45.120, CCA.45.400, CCA.45.740 TPC v Farrow (1990) 95 ALR 53; [1990] ATPR 41-018 ............................................... ACL.37.40, ACL.243.180 TPC v Friendship Aloe Vera Pty Ltd (1988) 82 ALR 557; [1988] ATPR 40-892; [1988] ASC 55-682 .............................................................................................................. ACL.18.1540, CCA.87.200 TPC v GLO Juice Co Pty Ltd (1987) 73 ALR 407; 9 IPR 63; [1987] ATPR 40-788 ....................... ACL.33.100, ACL.232.20, CCA.80.220 TPC v Gillette Company (No 1) (1993) 45 FCR 366; 118 ALR 271; [1993] ATPR 41-267 ............. CCA.50.100 TPC v Gold Coast Property Sales Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 442; 126 ALR 139; [1994] ATPR 41-311 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.80.160 TPC v Golden Australia Paper Manufacturers Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-370 ............... ACL.29.340, ACL.33.100 TPC v Golden Fleece Petroleum Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-528 .......................................................... CCA.48.260 TPC v ICI Aust Operations Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-153; (1991) 105 ALR 115 .............................. CCA.76.680 TPC v ICI Aust Operations Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 248; 110 ALR 47; [1992] ATPR 41-185 ...... CCA.76.1040, CCA.80.560 TPC v ICI Australia Petrochemicals Ltd [1983] ATPR 40-364 ............................................................ CCA.76.920 TPC v J & R Enterprises Pty Ltd (1991) 99 ALR 325; [1991] ATPR 41-133; [1991] ASC 56-061 ................... ACL.18.180, ACL.33.20, ACL.33.60, ACL.34.20, ACL.34.40, ACL.34.60, CCA.79.180, CCA.79.220 TPC v J W Bryant Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-075 ............................................................... ACL.2.140, CCA.4.420 TPC v JJ & YK Russell Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-132 ............................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Kensington Hiring Co Pty Ltd [1981] ATPR 40-256 ............................................................... CCA.48.180 TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092 ................. CCA.4.500, CCA.4.540, CCA.4.560, CCA.47.80, CCA.47.300, CCA.51.80 TPC v Leslievale Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-687 .......................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Madad Pty Ltd (1979) 40 FLR 453; [1979] ATPR 40-105 ......... CCA.76.260, CCA.76.620, CCA.79.400 TPC v Malleys Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 250; [1979] ATPR 40-118 .................................... CCA.48.140, CCA.48.200 TPC v Manfal Pty Ltd (No 3) (1992) 33 FCR 382; 105 ALR 520; [1992] ATPR 41-160 .............. ACL.236.200, ACL.237.40, CCA.86.380, CCA.87.60 TPC v Massey Ferguson (Aust) Ltd (1983) 67 FLR 364; [1983] ATPR 40-369 ................................ CCA.47.520 TPC v Milreis Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 144; 14 ALR 623; [1977] ATPR 40-028 ........ ACL.243.60, CCA.45.480, CCA.87.300 TPC v Milreis Pty Ltd (No 2) (1978) 32 FLR 234 ........................................................ CCA.80.400, CCA.80.480 TPC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 168; 55 ALR 527; [1984] ATPR 40-482 .................... ACL.35.60, CCA.76.60, CCA.76.100, CCA.84.80, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.200, CCA.96.360 TPC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 296; [1985] ATPR 40-503 .................. CCA.48.100, CCA.76.360, CCA.79.160, CCA.80.180 TPC v Monier Roofing Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-464 ....................................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 1) [1978] FCA 51; (1978) 40 FLR 74; [1979] ATPR 40-097 ............................................................... CCA.79.380, CCA.84.200, CCA.86.600, CCA.155.460 TPC v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 1) [1978] FCA 51; (1978) 40 FLR 74; 26 ALR 609 ................................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.480 TPC v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) (1979) 40 FLR 83; 26 ALR 609; [1979] ATPR 40-126 ..................................................................................................... CCA.45.80, CCA.77.40, CCA.155.460 TPC v Olympic Productions and Publications Pty Ltd (1986) 8 FCR 467; [1986] ATPR 40-670 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.80.440 TPC v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 326; 34 IPR 176; [1996] ATPR 41-478 ............................ ACL.18.460, ACL.18.680, ACL.18.800, ACL.18.860, ACL.18.1020, ACL.18.2020 TPC v Orlane Australia Pty Ltd (1984) 1 FCR 157; 51 ALR 767; [1984] ATPR 40-437 ................... CCA.98.80, CCA.98.100 TPC v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-307 ............................................................ ACL.29.340, ACL.29.500 TPC v Palmer Corp Ltd [1990] ATPR 40-995 ...................................................................................... CCA.76.440 TPC v Parker (1990) ATPR 41-055; 97 ALR 403; [1990] ASC 56-011 ............................................. CCA.79.420

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xci

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

TPC v Parkfield Operations Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 140; 59 ALR 589; [1985] ATPR 40-526 ... CCA.44ZZRD.140 TPC v Parkfield Operations Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 534; 62 ALR 267; [1985] ATPR 40-639 .......... ACL.224.40, CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.60 TPC v Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 601; [1992] ATPR 41-163 ................ ACL.29.220, ACL.35.60, CCA.48.200, CCA.96.180 TPC v Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-071 .................................................... CCA.48.200, CCA.96.360 TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 164; 124 ALR 685; [1994] ATPR 41-345 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.46.160, CCA.46.320 TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd (1982) 55 FLR 77 ................................................................ CCA.155.180 TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-590 ..................................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Port Adelaide Wool Co Pty Ltd (1995) 60 FCR 366; 132 ALR 645; [1995] ATPR 41-441 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.86A.20, CCA.86A.40 TPC v Prestige Motors Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-359 ................... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.45.580, CCA.48.280, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.340, CCA.76.1040 TPC v Pye Industries Sales Pty Ltd (1978) 3 TPR 274; [1978] ATPR 40-088 .................................. CCA.96.180 TPC v Pye Industries Sales Pty Ltd [1979] ATPR 40-088 ..................................................................... ACL.35.60 TPC v QDSV Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) 128 ALR 551; [1995] ATPR 41-371 ............ ACL.18.2060, ACL.29.500 TPC v Quality Publications Pty Ltd [1990] ATPR 40-991 .............................................. ACL.43.40, CCA.79.160 TPC v Queensland Aggregate Pty Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 52; 44 ALR 391 ............................................ CCA.84.180 TPC v Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd (1981) 4 TPR 397; 36 ALR 236; [1981] ATPR 40-228 ............................................................................................................................. CCA.4.500, CCA.84.80 TPC v Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 52; 44 ALR 391; [1982] ATPR 40-297 ........................................................................................................................... CCA.84.80, CCA.84.120 TPC v Radio World Pty Ltd (1989) 16 IPR 407; [1989] ATPR 40-973; [1989] ASC 55-929 ........... ACL.29.540 TPC v Rank Commercial Ltd (1994) 53 FCR 303; 123 ALR 551; [1994] ATPR 41-331 ................. CCA.80.660 TPC v Rank Commercial Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-324 ............................................................................. CCA.80.660 TPC v Rank Commercial Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-343 ............................................................................. CCA.80.660 TPC v Santos Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 382; 110 ALR 517; [1992] ATPR 41-195 ............. CCA.50.600, CCA.50.680, CCA.80.660 TPC v Santos Ltd [1992] ATPR 41-194 ............................ CCA.50.600, CCA.50.680, CCA.50.720, CCA.80.660 TPC v Service Station Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 206; 116 ALR 643; [1993] ATPR 41-260 .............. CCA.45.80, CCA.45.680 TPC v Service Station Association Ltd (1992) 109 ALR 465; [1992] ATPR 41-179 ................ CCA.44ZZRJ.140 TPC v Service Station Association Ltd [1993] FCA 405; (1993) 44 FCR 206 .................................... CCA.45.80 TPC v Sharp Corp of Australia Pty Ltd (1975) 8 ALR 255; [1975] ATPR 40-010 ............................ CCA.96.200 TPC v Simpson Pope Ltd [1980] FCA 83; (1980) 47 FLR 334 (note); [1980] ATPR 40-169; 30 ALR 544 ............................................. CCA.48.100, CCA.48.340, CCA.76.600, CCA.76.620, CCA.96.200 TPC v Simsmetal Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-449 ..................................... CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.420 TPC v Sony (Aust) Pty Ltd [1990] ATPR 41-031 ..................................... ACL.35.60, CCA.96.180, CCA.96.320 TPC v Stihl Chain Saws (Aust) Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-091; [1978] TPRS 305.14 ....................... CCA.48.100, CCA.79.160, CCA.96.200, CCA.96.220 TPC v Stirling (1980) 28 ALR 497; [1980] ATPR 40-145 .................................................................... CCA.80.60 TPC v Sun Alliance Australia Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-286 ........................ ACL.29.480, ACL.29.540, ACL.208.60, CCA.79.420, CCA.84.40, CCA.84.120, CCA.84.140 TPC v TNT Australia Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-375 ..................... CCA.44ZZRJ.180, CCA.76.380, CCA.76.440, CCA.76.600, CCA.76.620, CCA.76.640, CCA.79.280 TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1981) 55 FLR 219; 39 ALR 665 .... CCA.157.20, CCA.157.40, CCA.157.60 TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 .............. CCA.45D.220, CCA.4.160, CCA.4.320, CCA.45.80, CCA.45.220, CCA.50.120, CCA.84.20, CCA.84.100, CCA.84.120 TPC v Telstra Corp Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-256 ....................................................................................... ACL.18.700 TPC v Tepeda Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-319; [1994] ACL Rep 420 ................................................... CCA.47.300 TPC v Tepeda Pty Ltd (unreported, Federal Court, 11 December 1992) ............................................ CCA.77.100 TPC v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 197; [1985] ATPR 40-516 ................................... CCA.48.340

xcii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

TPC v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-563 ............................................. CCA.48.100, CCA.48.340 TPC v The Vales Wine Co Pty Ltd (1996) 6 FCR 336; 145 ALR 241; [1996] ATPR 41-480 ............. ACL.29.80 TPC v Tooth & Co Ltd (1979) 142 CLR 397; 53 ALJR 696; 26 ALR 185; [1979] ATPR 40-127 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.47.620 TPC v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1983] FCA 93; (1983) 76 FLR 455 ........... CCA.44ZZRJ.140, CCA.76.60, CCA.84.80, CCA.84.120, CCA.84.160, CCA.84.180 TPC v Vales Wine Co Pty Ltd (1996) 6 FCR 336; 145 ALR 241; [1996] ATPR 41-480 .................. ACL.29.340 TPC v Vaponordic (Aust) Pty Ltd (1975) 6 ALR 248; [1975] ATPR 40-010 ..................................... ACL.232.60 TPC v Walplan Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 495; [1985] ATPR 40-637 ................................ ACL.232.20, CCA.80.220 TPG Internet Pty Ltd v ACCC [2012] FCAFC 190 ................................. ACL.29.540, ACL.48.100, ACL.48.140 TRW Aust Holdings Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-122 ................................................................. CCA.90.1180 TRW Aust Holdings Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-127 ................................................................. CCA.90.1180 TSG Franchise Management Pty Ltd v Cigarette & Gift Warehouse (Franchising) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 674 .................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1580 TV-am plc v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 85; 3 BR 184; [1988] ATPR 40-891 ..................................................................................... ACL.18.2400, CCA.4E.300, CCA.86.440 Tabcorp Manager Pty Ltd, Re (A91127; 9 September 2009) ............................................................. CCA.90.1020 Tabcorp Wagering Manager (Vic) Pty Ltd, Re (A91419; 29 October 2014) ..................................... CCA.90.1000 Tabcorp Wagering Manager (Vic) Pty Ltd, Re (A91528; 3 June 2016) ............................................ CCA.90.1000 Taco Bell Pty Ltd v Taco Co of Australia Inc (1981) 60 FLR 60; 40 ALR 153; [1981] ATPR 40-277 ................................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1180 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 2 TPR 48; 42 ALR 177; [1982] ATPR 40-303 ........ ACL.18.140, ACL.18.160, ACL.18.260, ACL.18.320, ACL.18.340, ACL.18.440, ACL.18.1180 Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 407 ....................................................... CCA.138.80 Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-484 ................. ACL.18.1520, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.1980, ACL.18.2360 Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 444 ....................................................................... ACL.18.280 Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 410 ........................ ACL.18.1320, ACL.18.2140, ACL.18.2200 Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 65 ..................... ACL.18.1320, ACL.18.2140, ACL.18.2200 Tantipech v IOOF Australia Trustees (NSW) Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-614; [1998] NSW ConvR 55-840; [1998] Q ConvR 54-501; [1998] V ConvR 54-576 ......................................................... ACL.18.1900 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315; [2003] HCA 57 ...................................... ACL.20.20 Tanzone Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [1999] NSWSC 478; (1999) NSW ConvR 55-908; [1999] ATPR (Digest) 46-195 ...................................................................... ACL.20.400, CCA.87.220 Targetts Pty Ltd v Target Aust Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 51; [1993] ATPR 41-231 .... ACL.18.1100, ACL.18.1340, ACL.18.1920, ACL.18.2440 Tasmanian Chicken Growers Association, Re (CB00323) .............................................................. CCA.93AB.100 Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Assn, Re (A91467; 4 March 2015) ................................................. CCA.90.760 Tasmanian Oyster Research Council Ltd, Re [1991] ATPR (Com) 50-106 ....................................... CCA.90.1140 Taxation, Commissioner of v Chubb Australia Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 557 ................................................. ACL.3.60 Taxation, Commissioner of v Citibank Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 403; 20 ATR 292; 85 ALR 588; 89 ATC 4268 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.155.520 Taxation, Federal Commissioner of v Lutovi Investments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 434; 53 ALJR 152; 9 ATR 351; 22 ALR 519; 78 ATC 4708 ......................................................................... CCA.45.80 Taxation, Federal Commissioner of v United Aircraft Corp (1943) 68 CLR 525; [1944] ALR 23 ........................................................................................................................................................ CCA.2C.60 Taxation (Cth), Deputy Commissioner of v Hickey (1999) 99 ATC 5124; 42 ATR 229 .................... CCA.80.620 Taylor v Gosling [2010] VSC 75 ......................................................................................................... ACL.18.1700 Tec & Thomas (Aust) Pty Ltd v Matsumiya Computer Co Pty Ltd (1984) 1 FCR 28; 53 ALR 167; 2 IPR 81; [1984] ATPR 40-438 ...................................................................................... ACL.18.560 Tech Treat Pty Ltd v The Tank People Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1163 .................................................... ACL.18.1640

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xciii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 709 ............. ACL.18.2020, ACL.278.20, ACL.278.40, CCA.47.220, CCA.47.340, CCA.47.660 Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd v Clear Communications Ltd [1995] NZLR 385 .................. CCA.46.60, CCA.46.420, CCA.151AJ.60 Television Broadcasters Ltd v Ashton’s Nominees Pty Ltd (No.1) (1979) 22 SASR 552 .................... CCA.4J.20 Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd v Coles Myer Ltd (1989) 89 ALR 48; 15 IPR 362; [1989] ATPR 40-966 ....................................................................... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1600, ACL.18.2180 Telstra Corp Ltd v Cable & Wireless Optus Ltd [2001] FCA 1238 .................................................. ACL.18.2020 Telstra Corp Ltd v Cable & Wireless Optus Ltd [2001] FCA 1478 ...... ACL.18.220, ACL.18.320, ACL.18.2020 Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd (1997) 78 FCR 132; 148 ALR 202; 38 IPR 531; [1997] ATPR 41-575 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.46.680 Telstra Corp Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 36 IPR 515; [1997] ATPR 41-541 ........ ACL.18.680, ACL.18.700, ACL.18.760, ACL.18.820, ACL.18.2020 Telstra Corp Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-541 .......................................... CCA.80.140 Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 568 ..... ACL.18.180, ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.2200 Telstra Corp Ltd, Re [2001] ACompT 1; (2001) 160 FLR 120; [2001] ATPR 41-812 ..................... CCA.101.60, CCR.28E.20 Telstra Corp Ltd, Re [2006] ACompT 4; [2006] ATPR 42-121 .......................... CCA.152AH.40, CCA.152CF.20 Telstra Corp Ltd (No 3), Re [2007] ACompT 3; (2007) 242 ALR 482; [2007] ATPR 42-160 ..... CCA.152CE.40 Telstra Corp Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2009) 175 FCR 201; [2009] ATPR 42-275; [2009] FCAFC 23 .......................................................................................................... CCA.152AB.80 Telstra Corp Ltd v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 35 ........................................... ACL.18.700, ACL.18.2020 Templar v Watt (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1230 ......................................................................................... ACL.18.60 Ten Pin Bowling Australia Ltd, Re (A91531 ...................................................................................... CCA.90.1260 10th Cantanae Pty Ltd v Shoshana Pty Ltd (1987) 79 ALR 299; 10 IPR 289; [1988] ATPR 40-833 .......................... ACL.18.280, ACL.18.1740, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2360, ACL.29.440, ACL.29.460 Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153; [1971] 2 WLR 1166; 2 All ER 127 ................. CCA.84.160 Thai Silk Co Ltd v Aser Nominees Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-146 .................................................... ACL.18.1060 The Shell Company of Australia Ltd, Re (1975) TRPS 108.1 .......................................................... CCA.45B.140 The South East Potato Growers Association, Re A91322 ............................................ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 The State of Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming, Re (A91224; 7 October 2010) ................ CCA.90.1060, CCA.90.1240 Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey [2000] FCA 665; (2000) 99 FCR 232; 175 ALR 89; [2000] ATPR 41-766; [2000] ASAL 55-793 .................. ACL.2.120, ACL.104.40, ACL.107.40, ACL.109.40, ACL.118.40, ACL.122.40, ACL.128.40, ACL.131.60, CCA.PTXI.DIV3.80, CCA.PTXI.DIV3.100, CCA.4.340 Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey (No 2) [2000] FCA 810 ................................................... CCA.PTXI.DIV3.100 Thomas v Foreshore Marine Exhaust Systems Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 451; [2006] ATPR 42-100 ..................................................................................................... ACL.54.40, ACL.54.160, ACL.55.140 Thompson v Ice Creameries of Australia Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-611 ........................................... ACL.18.1580 Thompson v JT Fossey Pty Ltd (No 1) (1978) 20 ALR 496; [1978] ATPR 40-079 ... ACL.29.180, ACL.29.240, CCA.79.460, CCA.84.80 Thompson v Mastertouch TV Service Pty Ltd (No 3) (1977) 29 FLR 270; 15 ALR 487; [1977] ATPR 40-031 ........................................................................... ACL.CH4.20, ACL.18.400, CCA.79.100 Thompson v Riley McKay Pty Ltd (No 2) [1980] FCA 24; (1980) 42 FLR 279; 29 ALR 267; [1980] ATPR 40-152 .......................................................................................... ACL.29.100, ACL.29.120 Thompson v Riley McKay Pty Ltd (No 3) (1980) 43 FLR 293; 31 ALR 507; [1980] ATPR 40-175 .......................................................................................................................... ACL.151.60, ACL.212.20 Thomson v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2012] FCAFC 15 ...................................................................... CCA.138.80 Thomson Australian Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC (1981) 148 CLR 150; 55 ALJR 614; 37 ALR 66; [1981] ATPR 40-234 ............................................... CCA.80.160, CCA.80.380, CCA.80.440, CCA.80.480 Thomson Publications (Aust) Pty Ltd v TPC (1979) 40 FLR 257; 27 ALR 551; [1979] ATPR 40-133 ............................................................................................................. CCA.2A.160, CCA.80.180

xciv

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Thorp v CA Imports Pty Ltd [1990] ATPR 40-996; (1989) 16 IPR 511 ............................................. ACL.29.500 Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 .......................... CCA.45D.100, CCA.45D.180, CCA.45D.200, CCA.45D.220, CCA.45.220, CCA.46.140, CCA.50.120 Timber & Building Materials Merchants’ Assn (NSW) Ltd, Re [1976] TPRS 103.354 ................... CCA.90.1400 Timber & Building Materials Merchants’ Assn (NSW) Ltd, Re [1976] TPRS 203.11 ...................... CCA.88.200, CCA.101.140, CCA.102.260 Timberlane Lumber Co v Bank of America 549 F 2d 597 (1976) ........................................................ CCA.5.160 Ting v Blanche (1993) 118 ALR 543; [1993] ATPR 41-282 ............................. ACL.4.40, ACL.4.60, ACL.4.200 Tiplady v Gold Coast Carlton Pty Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 426; 54 ALR 337; [1984] ATPR 40-472 .............................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1860 Tiplady v Gold Coast Carlton Pty Ltd (1984) 8 FCR 438; [1984] ATPR 40-491 ............................. ACL.18.1860 Tobacco Institute of Aust v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1; 111 ALR 61; 24 IPR 529; [1993] ATPR 41-199 .......................................... ACL.18.340, ACL.18.680 Tobacco Institute of Australia v Woodward (1993) 32 NSWLR 559; [1994] ATPR 41-185 ................ CCA.4.540 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1; [1992] FCA 630 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.400 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2) (1993) 41 FCR 89; 113 ALR 257; 25 IPR 509; [1993] ATPR 41-222 ... CCA.163A.160, CCA.86.220 Toben v Jones [2012] FCA 1193 ............................................................................................................. CCA.4.540 Toby Constructions Products Pty Ltd v Computa Bar (Sales) Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 48; (1983) 77 FLR 377; 50 ALR 684; [1983] ATPR 40-377 ............................................. ACL.2.120, CCA.4.340 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52 ... ACL.18.420, ACL.18.500 Toll Holdings Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCA 462; (2009) 256 ALR 631; [2009] ATPR 42-303 ............. CCA.87B.20, CCA.87B.140, CCA.87B.200, CCA.87B.240, CCA.87B.280 Toll/Patrick (ACCC Competition Assessment 5 May 2006) ................................................................ CCA.50.320 Tomlinex Pty Ltd v Candoura Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-302 ............................................................... ACL.18.400 Tompkin v Nossida (No 1) Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-662 .................................................................. ACL.243.180 Tonto Home Loans Australia Pty Ltd v Tavares [2011] NSWCA 389 ................................................... ACL.21.60 Tooheys Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1961) 105 CLR 602; [1961] HCA 35 ......................................................................................................................................................... ACL.45.60 Tooheys Ltd, Re (1979) ATPR 40-113 ........................................................................................................ MG.4.80 Tooltechnic Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd, Re (A91433; 5 December 2014) ....................... CCA.48.160, CCA.90.160, CCA.90.1240 Tooth & Co Ltd, Re [1978] FCA 10; (1978) 31 FLR 314; 19 ALR 191; [1978] ATPR 40-065 ............................................ CCA.163A.40, CCA.163A.80, CCA.163A.120, CCA.163A.140, MG.4.80 Tooth & Co Ltd, Re (1979) 39 FLR 1; [1979] ATPR 40-113 .............. CCA.4E.140, CCA.4E.260, CCA.4E.340, CCA.45B.140, CCA.90.200, CCA.90.240, CCA.90.480, CCA.90.600, CCA.101.140, CCA.102.140 Tooth & Co Ltd, Re; Re Tooheys (1977) TPRS 203.131 ....................................................................... CCA.4.160 Tooth & Co Ltd (No 2), Re [1978] FCA 36; (1978) 34 FLR 112 .................................................. CCA.163A.120 Top Performance Motors Pty Ltd v Ira Berk (Qld) Pty Ltd (1975) 24 FLR 286; 5 ALR 465; [1975] ATPR 40-004 ......................................................................... CCA.4E.240, CCA.45.80, CCA.151AJ.60 Toteff v Antonas (1952) 87 CLR 647; 25 ALJ 732 ...................................................... ACL.236.160, CCA.82.120 Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment [1978] AC 359 ........................................... CCA.2A.80 Townsville Hospitals Board v Townsville City Council (1982) 149 CLR 282; 56 ALJR 789; 42 ALR 319 ................................................................................................................... CCA.2A.60, CCA.2B.80 Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (1990) ATPR 41-002 ..................................................... MG.APX2.80 Trade Practices Commission v Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd (1974) 23 FLR 457; 4 ALR 133 ............. CCA.96.280 Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2015] NSWCA 94 .................... ACL.4.220, ACL.18.500 Tradestock Pty Ltd v TNT (Management) Pty Ltd (1977) 30 FLR 343; 14 ALR 52; [1977] ATPR 40-046 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.560 Tradestock Pty Ltd v TNT (Management) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1978) 32 FLR 420; 17 ALR 257 ............ CCA.4.320 Transfield Pty Ltd v Arlo International Ltd [1980] HCA 15; (1980) 144 CLR 83 ...... CCA.45.240, CCA.51.180

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xcv

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 68; [2005] ATPR 42-058; [2005] ASAL 55-140 .................................................................................................. ACL.18.600, ACL.236.80 Transport Workers’ Union of Australia - Queensland Branch, Re (A91310; 26 July 2012) .............. CCA.90.760 Transport Workers Union of Australia SA/NT Branch, Re (A91146; 9 September 2009) .................. CCA.90.760 Transport Workers Union of Australia SA/NT Branch, Re (A91514) ......................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1380 Travel Compensation Fund v Tambree (t/as R Tambree & Assocs) [2005] HCA 69; (2006) 224 CLR 627; 80 ALJR 183 ................................................................ ACL.18.600, ACL.236.40, ACL.236.80 Travel Industries Automated Systems Pty Ltd, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-117 .............................. CCA.90.1400 Travel Industries Automated Systems Pty Ltd, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-131 ......... CCA.90.100, CCA.90.740, CCA.90.1400 Traveland Pty Ltd v Doherty (1982) 63 FLR 41; 6 A Crim R 181; 41 ALR 563; [1982] ATPR 40-293 ........................................................................................ CCA.163.40, CCA.163.60, CCA.163.80 Trego v Hunt [1896] AC 7 ..................................................................................................................... CCA.51.200 Treloar v Ivory [1991] ASC 56-076; [1991] ATPR 41-123 ................................................................ ACL.18.1260 Tri-Global (Aust) Pty Ltd v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Soc Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-119; [1992] ATPR 41-174 ................................................................................ CCA.46.460, CCA.151AJ.60 Trumpet Software Pty Ltd v OzEmail Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-511 ................................................ ACL.18.2020 Truong Giang Corp v Quach [2015] FCA 1097 .................................................................................. ACL.18.2280 Trust Co of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 185; (2006) 66 NSWLR 77; 234 ALR 398 ..................................................................................................................................... CCA.86.400 Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd [2000] HCA 11; (2000) 200 CLR 591; 74 ALJR 604; 169 ALR 616; [2000] ATPR 41-757 ........................................................................................................................ CCA.163A.20, CCA.80.20 Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investments Ltd [1998] FCA 525; (1998) 42 IPR 1; [1998] ATPR 41-633 ............................................................. ACL.4.200, ACL.18.1160 Tsang v Uvanna Pty Ltd (1996) 140 ALR 273 ................................................................................... ACL.18.1820 Turelin Nominees Pty Ltd v Dainford Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-444 ................................................ ACL.18.1860 Turner v Jenolan Investments Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-571 ....................................... ACL.18.1860, CCA.86.500 Turner v Windever [2005] NSWCA 73 ................................................................................................. ACL.20.160 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v SA Brewing Co Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 451; 34 IPR 225; [1996] AIPC 91-258; [1996] ATPR 41-483 ............... ACL.18.180, ACL.18.740, ACL.18.800, ACL.18.1520, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2280 Tycoon Holdings Pty Ltd v Trencor Jetco Inc [1995] FCA 1185; [1995] ATPR 41-413 ..................... CCA.5.140 Typing Centre of NSW Pty Ltd v Northern Business College Ltd (1989) 13 IPR 627; [1989] ATPR 40-943 .................................................................................... ACL.18.680, ACL.18.1820, ACL.236.160

U US v AMR Corp (2003) 335 F 3d 1109; [2003-2] Trade Cases 74,078 .............................................. CCA.46.580 US v Aluminium Co of America 148 F 2d 416 (1945) .......................................................................... CCA.5.160 US v Grinnell Corp 384 US 563 (1966) ................................................................................................. CCA.46.20 US v Terminal Railroad Assn 224 US 383 (1912) .................... CCA.44G.100, CCA.PTIIIA.20, CCA.PTIIIA.40 US Anchor Manufacturing Inc v Rule Industries Inc (1993) 7 F 3d 986; [1993-2] Trade Cases 70,426 ...................................................................................................................................... CCA.46.560 Unilan Holdings Pty Ltd v Kerin (1992) 35 FCR 272; 107 ALR 709; [1992] ATPR 41-169 ........... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1720, CCA.4.540, CCA.6.120 Unilever Australia Ltd v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 573 .... ACL.18.220, ACL.18.1620, ACL.234.20 United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 49; 157 CLR 1; 60 ALR 741 ................... CCA.4J.20 United Energy Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-244 ...................................................... CCA.90.840, CCA.90.940 United Pacific Industries Pty Ltd v Madison Sports Pty Ltd [1998] AIPC 91-419; [1998] ATPR 41-643 ............................................................................................................. ACL.18.920, ACL.18.2120 United Permanent Building Soc Ltd, Re (1976) 26 FLR 129 ............. CCA.90.980, CCA.102.200, CCA.103.180 United Permanent Building Soc Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-156 ............................................... CCA.91B.60 United Real Estate Agents Group Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-146 ........................................... CCA.90.1200

xcvi

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

United States v Grinnell Corp 384 US 563 (1966) ............................................................................... CCA.46.700 United States v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co (1940) 310 US 150 ..................... CCA.44ZZRD.20, CCA.44ZZRD.300 United States v Trenton Potteries Co 273 US 392 (1927) ........................................................... CCA.44ZZRD.20 United States Tobacco Co v Minister for Consumer Affairs (1988) 15 ALD 104; 79 ALR 430; [1988] ATPR 40-870; [1988] ASC 55-669 ................................................................. CCA.PTXI.DIV3.60 United Telecasters Sydney Ltd v Pan Hotels International Pty Ltd (1978) 3 TPR 220; [1978] ATPR 40-085 ............................................................................................................. ACL.18.460, ACL.18.1180 Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] ATPR 41-947; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) ATPR 41-947 ...... CCA.4.140, CCA.4E.340, CCA.4F.40, CCA.45.220, CCA.45.240, CCA.45.280, CCA.45.300, CCA.45.240, CCA.46.120, CCA.46.300, CCA.46.700, CCA.46.760, CCA.46.920, CCA.47.120, CCA.47.380, CCA.47.600, CCA.50.320, CCA.76.300, CCA.76.500, CCA.76.540, CCA.76.680, CCA.79.200 Universal Telecasters (Qld) Ltd v Guthrie (1978) 32 FLR 360; 18 ALR 531; [1978] ATPR 40-062 ............................................................................... ACL.18.480, ACL.29.160, ACL.208.80, CCA.4.560 University of Melbourne, Re (A91144; 26 November 2009) ............................................................... CCA.90.860 University of New South Wales v Moorehouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1; 49 ALJR 267; 6 ALR 193 ................................................................................................................. CCA.163A.140 University of Sydney v ResMed Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 232 ............................................................. CCA.138.80 Urban Renewal Authority, Re (A91416; 28 February 2014) .............................................................. CCA.90.1060

V VFF Chicken Meat Growers Boycott Authorisation, Re [2006] ACompT 2; [2006] ATPR 42-120 ....................................................................................................... CCA.90.60, CCA.90.80, CCA.90.100 VISA Worldwide Pte Ltd, Re (A91379; 18 December 2013) .............................................................. CCA.90.700 Vanfi (Aust) Pty Ltd v Novasonic Corp Pty Ltd (1982) 2 TPR 459 ................................................... CCA.80.160 Veda Advantage Ltd v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 255 .............. ACL.18.840, ACL.18.1740 Verizon Communications Inc v Offices of Curtis V Trinko LLP 540 US 398 (2004) ................. CCA.PTIIIA.40, CCA.46.20 Verizon Communications Inc v Trinko [2004-1] Trade Cases 74,241 ................................................. CCA.46.700 Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 104 ................................ ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2380 Victoria v Hodgson (1992) 10 ACLC 1,205; 8 ACSR 33; [1992] 2 VR 613; ..................................... ACL.18.520 Victoria Quay International RoRo Terminal (ACCC Competition Assessment 14 October 2015) ........................................................................................................................... CCA.50.320, CCA.50.420 Victorian Association of Newsagents Ltd, Re (A91399; 21 May 2014) ..................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1120 Victorian Association of Newsagents Ltd, Re (A91426; 8 May 2014) ....................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1120 Victorian Egg Marketing Board v Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd (1978) 33 FLR 294; 20 ALR 129; [1978] ATPR 40-081 .......................................................................................... CCA.46.500, CCA.80.220 Victorian Farmers Federation, Re (A91270; 12 December 2012) ............................... CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 Victorian Farmers Federation, Re (A91534) ................................................................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 Victorian Off-Course Agents Association Inc, Re (CB00288) ........................................................ CCA.93AB.100 Victorian Potato Growers Council, Re (A91048; 12 December 2012) ........................ CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 Victorian Road Transport Assn Inc, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-148 .................................................. CCA.90.740 Victorian Stock Agents’ Assn, Re (1983) 5 TPR 308; [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-059 ... CCA.90.660, CCA.91B.60 Victorian Stock Agents’ Assn, Re [1993] ATPR (Com) 50-128 ................................... CCA.91B.60, CCA.90.660 Victorian Taxi Association, Re (A91428) ............................................................................................ CCA.90.1380 Video Ezy International Pty Ltd v Sedema Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 143 ........................................... ACL.21.360 Vieright Pty Ltd v Myer Stores Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-405 ................................................................. ACL.18.2160 Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 240; (2004) 139 FCR 330; 210 ALR 114; [2004] ATPR 42-019 .............................................................. CCA.4.540 Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd (No 2) (2004) 134 FCR 422; 208 ALR 98; [2004] FCA 133; [2004] ATPR 41-979; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-190 ........................................................ ACL.18.60, ACL.18.1720, CCA.2A.80, CCA.2A.160, CCA.4.540 Vink v Schering Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-064; [1991] ASC 56-025 ................................................. ACL.236.240

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xcvii

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Virgin Aust Airlines Pty Ltd and Singapore Airlines, Re (A91267; 1 December 2011) ................... CCA.90.1400 Virgin Aust Airlines Pty Ltd, Re (A91475; 14 August 2015) ............................................................ CCA.90.1400 Virgin Aust Holdings Ltd/Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 31 July 2013) ................................................................................................................ CCA.50.300 Virgin Aust and Singapore Airlines, Re (A91539) .............................................................................. CCA.90.1400 Virgin Aust and Skywest Airlines, Re (A91287; 10 May 2012) ........................................................ CCA.90.1400 Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd, Re [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092 .................... CCA.44B.100, CCA.44F.20, CCA.44G.20, CCA.44G.80, CCA.44G.180, CCA.44G.220, CCA.44K.160 Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd and Air New Zealand Ltd, Re (A91151; 10 December 2009) ............ CCA.90.1400 Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd and Etihad Airways, Re (A91247; 3 February 2011) .......................... CCA.90.1400 Vision Eye Institute Ltd, Re (A91491 10 September 2015) ................................................................. CCA.90.860 Vision Group Holdings Ltd, Re (A91217; 8 September 2010) .................................... CCA.90.860, CCA.90.1420 Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; [2003] HCA 59 .............................. CCA.4E.60 Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414 .......................................................................................... CCA.2.20, CCA.4.440, CCA.45.440, CCA.88.60 Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 236; (2005) 224 ALR 390; [2006] ATPR 42-095 ................................................................................................................................................ CCA.76.500 Voss Real Estate Pty Ltd v Schreiner (1998) 70 SASR 545; [1998] ATPR 41-627 ......................... ACL.18.1860, ACL.236.160 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; 65 ALJR 83; 97 ALR 24; [1990] HCA 55 ............................................................................................................................. CCA.5.20, CCA.5.180

W W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530; 27 ALR 130 .............................................. CCA.4.540 WA v Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245 ................................................................................. ACL.21.300 WA Broiler Grower Assn Inc, Re (A91527 .................................................................. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 WA Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman [1980] FCA 79; (1980) 41 FLR 175; [1980] ATPR 40-163 .......... CCA.155.20, CCA.155.100, CCA.155.120, CCA.155.200 WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [1997] FCA 1074; [1997] ATPR 41-590 ........... ACL.18.1000, ACL.18.1200, ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2280 WEA International Inc v Hanimex Corp Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 274; [1987] ATPR 40-827 ................ ACL.18.1180 WJ Green & Co (1984) Pty Ltd v Wilden Pty Ltd (unreported, Sup Ct, WA, 24 April 1997) ......... ACL.18.620, ACL.18.1840 WSGAL Pty Ltd v TPC (1994) 51 FCR 115; 122 ALR 673; [1994] ATPR 41-314 ....... CCA.81.20, CCA.81.40, CCA.81.60 WTH Pty Ltd v Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40-479 ...................................... ACL.18.2260 Wakeman, Re [1999] ATPR 41-675 ............................................................................... CCA.90A.40, CCA.101.60 Wakim, Re; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27; (1999) 198 CLR 511; 73 ALJR 839; 163 ALR 270; 24 Fam LR 669; 17 ACLC 1,055; 31 ACSR 99 ........................................................ CCA.150D.20 Walker, Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rugs A Million Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 127 ..................... ACL.18.980 Wall v SBA Foods Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1831 ..................................................................................... CCA.86A.40 Wallace v Walplan Pty Ltd (1985) 8 FCR 14; 59 ALR 771; [1985] ATPR 40-570 .............................. ACL.35.80 Wallace v Walplan Pty Ltd sub nom Wallace v Brodribb (1985) 5 FCR 315; 58 ALR 737; [1985] ATPR 40-541 ....................................................................................................... ACL.35.40, ACL.35.80 Wallis v Downard-Pickford (North Qld) Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 17; (1994) 179 CLR 388; 68 ALJR 395; 120 ALR 440; [1994] Aust Torts Reports 81-269; [1994] ATPR 41-300 ....... 275.20, ACL.60.40, ACL.60.80 Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace [1985] FCA 479; (1986) 8 FCR 27; 63 ALR 453; [1985] ATPR 40-650 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.84.120, CCA.84.140 Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace (1986) 8 FCR 27; 63 ALR 453; [1985] ATPR 40-650; [1985] FCA 479 ............................................................................................................................................ CCA.84.120 Waltip Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-975 ............................. ACL.18.1900

xcviii

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Waratah Coal Services Ltd, Re [1983] ATPR (Com) 50-056 ............................................................. CCA.90.1420 Ward v Premier Ice Skating Rink Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-681 ....................................................... ACL.18.1980 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; 66 ALJR 839; 109 ALR 247; [1992] ATPR 41-189 .............. ACL.236.40, ACL.236.160, ACL.236.220, ACL.236.240, ACL.236.480, ACL.237.20, ACL.237.140, CCA.82.60, CCA.82.80, CCA.82.100, CCA.82.120, CCA.82.160, CCA.82.180, CCA.82.320, CCA.87.20, CCA.87.360 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 175 CLR 514 ... ACL.236.20, ACL.236.160 Warman International Ltd v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 478; 6 IPR 578; 67 ALR 253; [1986] ATPR 40-714 ................................................. CCA.45.440, CCA.46.460, CCA.151AJ.60 Warner v Elders Rural Finance Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 399; 113 ALR 517; [1993] ATPR 41-238 ........................................................................................................................ ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1540 Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 59 ......................... ACL.234.20, CCA.80.120 Warnock v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1989) 5 ANZ Ins Cas 60-897; [1989] ATPR 40-928; [1989] ASC 55-702 .......... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1300, ACL.60.80, ACL.61.80, ACL.236.160, ACL.243.180 Water Board v Maustakas [1988] HCA 12; (1988) 180 CLR 491 ....................................................... CCA.138.80 Water Conservation & Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492; [1947] HCA 21 ........................................................................................................ CCA.44G.180, CCA.90.500 Watson v Foxman (2000) 49 NSWLR 315 ............................................ ACL.18.360, ACL.236.560, CCA.76.160 Wattyl Ltd, Re [1996] ATPR (Com) 50-232 .............................................................. CCA.90.1100, CCA.95AT.60 Wealthsure Pty Ltd v Selig [2014] FCAFC 64 .................................................................................. CCA.87CB.40 Webb Distributors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Victoria (1993) 179 CLR 15; 67 ALJR 961; 117 ALR 321; 11 ACSR 731; 11 ACLC 1,178 ................................................... ACL.18.520, ACL.243.60, CCA.87.300 Weitmann v Katies Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 336; [1977] ATPR 40-041 .......... ACL.18.80, ACL.18.280, ACL.29.100 Wells v John R Lewis (International) Pty Ltd (1975) 25 FLR 194; 1 TPC 226; [1975] ATPR 40-007 .............................................................. ACL.40.100, ACL.44.80, CCA.4.480, CCA.4.540, CCA.5.120 Welsh v Digilin Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 149 ........................................................................................ CCA.86.260 Welton v Missouri 91 US 275 (1875) ..................................................................................................... CCA.4.540 West Australian Newspapers Ltd, Re [1986] ATPR (Com) 50-108 ................................................... CCA.90.1120 Westbay Seafoods (Aust) Pty Ltd v Transpacific Standardbred Agency Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR (Digest) 46-162 ................................................................................................................................... CCA.76.80 Western Australia v Bond Corp Holdings Ltd (1991) 99 ALR 125; [1991] ATPR 41-081 ................. ACL.4.200, ACL.18.1160 Western Australia v Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245; 102 ALR 213; [1991] ATPR 41-131 ......................................................................... ACL.236.240, ACL.237.280, CCA.82.180, CCA.87.260 Western Australian Broiler Growers Assn Inc, Re (A91262; 16 June 2011) .............. CCA.90.760, CCA.90.1140 Western Suburbs Taxi Ltd, Re [1994] ATPR (Com) 50-147 .............................................................. CCA.90.1400 Westham Dredging Co Pty Ltd v Woodside Petroleum Development Pty Ltd (1983) 66 FLR 14 ................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.240, ACL.18.580 Westpac Banking Corp v Eltran Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 541; 74 ALR 45; [1987] ATPR 40-802 .................................................................................................................................................. CCA.86.80 Westpac Banking Corp v Jarrett [2000] FCA 1675 .............................................................................. ACL.20.300 Westpac Banking Corp v Northern Metals Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 499; [1989] ATPR 40-953 ........... ACL.33.20, ACL.34.20, ACL.34.40, CCA.163A.40, CCA.163A.60 Westpac Banking Corp v Spice [1990] ATPR 41-024 .................................................. ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1300 Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd v Wright [1989] ATPR 40-940 ..................................................... CCA.76.120 White v Eurocycle Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-330 ..................................................................................... ACL.7.20 Wickham v Canberra & District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-664 ................... CCA.4.500 Wilcox, Re; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 511; 137 ALR 47; 40 AILR 3-412; [1996] ATPR 41-496 .............................................................. CCA.86A.20, CCA.86A.40, CCA.86.600 Wilcox, Re; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151; 141 ALR 727; [1997] ATPR 41-557 ......................................................................................................................... CCA.79.380 Wilde v Menville Pty Ltd (1981) 50 FLR 380; [1981] ATPR 40-195; [1981] TPRS 314.103 ............ ACL.31.40, ACL.37.40, CCA.79.500

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

xcix

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF CASES

Wilkinson v Katies Fashions (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 390; 67 ALR 137; [1986] ATPR 40-721 ................................................................................................................................................ ACL.208.80 Williams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] NSWSC 345 ..... ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1300, ACL.236.60 Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 4) [2000] FCA 1925; (2000) 180 ALR 459 ................. CCA.86.360 Williams v Papersave Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 80; 76 ALR 152; [1987] ATPR 40-818 .................... CCA.46.460, CCA.151AJ.60 Williams v Pisano (2015) 299 FLR 172; [2015] NSWCA 177; [2015] ATPR 42-504 ... ACL.18.60, ACL.18.580 Williams v Powell [1894] WN 141 ....................................................................................................... CCA.86.220 Windsor Smith Pty Ltd v Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 286; [2000] FCA 756 ...... ACL.18.2120, ACL.18.2160 Winegrape Growers Council of Australia Inc, Re [1992] ATPR (Com) 50-114 .......... CCA.90.320, CCA.90.360, CCA.90.1140 Wingecarribee Shire Council v Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (in Liq) [2012] FCA 1028 ........... ACL.18.1540, CCA.131A.20 Winterton Constructions Pty Ltd v Hambros Australia Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 97; 111 ALR 649; [1993] ATPR 41-205 ................................................................................................. ACL.18.380, ACL.18.1540 Wolfe v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2012] VSC 275 ............................................................................. ACL.22.40 Wollongong City Council & Shellharbour City Council, Re (A91361; 31 July 2013) ..................... CCA.90.1060 Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-613 ................................................................................... CCA.86A.40 Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 48; (1999) 199 CLR 255; 73 ALJR 1427; 165 ALR 373; [1999] ATPR 41-713 ........................................................................................ ACL.237.100, CCA.87.160 Wood v Wood [1997] ATPR 41-581 ..................................................... ACL.236.240, ACL.236.480, CCA.82.320 Woodhams v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1998] 4 VR 309 ...................................................... CCA.2C.80 Woodside Energy Ltd and Benaris International Pty Ltd, Re (A91135; 2 September 2009) ............ CCA.90.1220 Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ..................................................................................... ACL.18.2200 Woolworths Ltd v Fels [2002] HCA 50; (2002) 213 CLR 598; 193 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-897 .............................................................................................................................................. CCA.155.520 Woolworths Ltd, Re (A91519) ............................................................................................................. CCA.90.1240 Woolworths Ltd & Lowe’s Companies Inc/G Gay & Co stores (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 5 December 2013) ......................................................................................................... CCA.50.300 Workwear Industries Pty Ltd v Pacific Brands Workwear Group Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1042 ........... ACL.18.460, ACL.18.2160 World Brands Management Pty Ltd v Brazin Ltd [2005] FCA 1673 ................................................. CCA.86A.40 World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish (1977) 16 ALR 181; [1977] ATPR 40-040 ...... CCA.80.100, CCA.80.540 Worldplay Services Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 70; (2005) 143 FCR 345; 219 ALR 363; [2005] ATPR 42-068 ............................................................................................ ACL.44.80, ACL.44.100 Wribass Pty Ltd v Swallow [1979] FCA 3; (1979) 38 FLR 92; [1979] ATPR 40-101 ................... CCA.45D.180 Wright v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1989) 15 NSWLR 679; 85 ALR 442; 94 FLR 399; [1989] ATPR 40-929 ....................................................................................................................... ACL.18.1460 Wright v Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd [1988] ATPR 40-865 ...... ACL.18.600, ACL.18.1540, CCA.76.120 Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG [2008] FCA 1510; [2008] ATPR 42-258 .................... CCA.86.140 Wu v Ling [2016] NSWCA 322 ...................................................................................... ACL.20.160, ACL.20.300 Wylie Steel Pty Ltd, Re [1980] ATPR 40-170 ............................................................... CCA.90A.40, CCA.101.60

Y Yamaji v Westpac Banking Corp (No 2) [1993] FCA 273; (1993) 42 FCR 436; 115 ALR 240; [1993] ATPR 41-244 ................................................................................................................... CCA.5.140 Yanco Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v First Chicago Australia Ltd [1978] HCA 42; (1978) 139 CLR 410 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.51ACB.80 Yanmar Diesel Engine Co Ltd v Kama Diesel Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1330 ........................ ACL.18.2200 Yardley of London (Aust) Pty Ltd v Chapman & Lester The Sales Promotion Agency Pty Ltd (1989) 17 IPR 345; [1990] ATPR 40-989 ............................................................................... ACL.18.1620

c

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Yarra Valley Dairy Pty Ltd v Lemnos Foods Pty Ltd (2010) 191 FCR 297; 90 IPR 117; [2010] FCA 1367 ............................................................................................................................. ACL.18.2280 Yates v Whitlam [1999] ATPR 41-722; [2000] 18 ACLC 55 ................................................................ CCA.4.540 Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd v Como Investments Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-508 ........ ACL.18.1560, ACL.18.1940 Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1129 ......................................................................... CCA.86.260 Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649; [1939] ALR 62; 13 ALJ 84 ....................................................... ACL.20.180 Yorke v Lucas (1983) 80 FLR 143; 49 ALR 672; [1983] ATPR 40-401 ..................... CCA.76.100, CCA.82.140, CCA.96.200 Yorke v Lucas [1985] HCA 65; (1985) 158 CLR 661; 59 ALJR 776; 61 ALR 307; [1985] ATPR 40-622 .................. ACL.18.40, ACL.18.180, ACL.18.400, ACL.18.480, ACL.224.100, ACL.224.120, ACL.224.140, CCA.76.80, CCA.76.120, CCA.76.140, CCA.79.220 Yorke v Ross Lucas Pty Ltd (1982) 69 FLR 116; 2 TPR 199; 45 ALR 299 .................................... ACL.236.160 Yorke v Ross Lucas Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 268; 46 ALR 319; 5 TPR 11; [1983] ATPR 40-336 ............................................................................................................................................... CCA.75B.20 Yorke v Ross Lucas Pty Ltd (No 2) [1983] FCA 16; (1983) 46 ALR 319 ....................................... ACL.224.120

Z Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848 ............. ACL.18.1180, ACL.18.2140, ACL.18.2200 Zietsch, Ex parte; Re Craig (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 360 ........................................................................ CCA.79.100 Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) 6 ANZ Ins Cas 61-023; [1990] ATPR 41-058 ................. ACL.21.340, ACL.60.80, ACL.61.80, ACL.236.360 Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 445; 6 ANZ Ins Cas 60-961; [1990] ATPR 41-009 ................................................ ACL.20.60, ACL.21.340, ACL.60.80, ACL.61.80, ACL.236.360 Zwanenberg Australia Pty Ltd v Moira Mac’s Poultry and Fine Foods Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1401 ................................................................................................................................................. ACL.18.1360

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

ci

Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

Competition and Consumer Act and Regulations

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

1

Part I – Preliminary 1 Short title...................................................................................................................................... 57 2 Object of this Act..........................................................................................................................58 2A Application of Act to Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities........................................59 2B Application of Act to States and Territories..................................................................................65 2BA Application of Part IV to local government bodies...................................................................... 68 2C Activities that are not business.................................................................................................... 69 2D Exemption of certain activities of local government bodies from Part IV [Repealed]................. 72 3 Repeal.......................................................................................................................................... 72 4 Interpretation................................................................................................................................ 72 4A Subsidiary, holding and related bodies corporate..................................................................... 102 4B Consumers................................................................................................................................. 104 4C Acquisition, supply and re-supply.............................................................................................. 106 4D Exclusionary provisions............................................................................................................. 108 4E Market.........................................................................................................................................113 4F References to purpose or reason.............................................................................................. 131 4G Lessening of competition to include preventing or hindering competition................................ 134 4H Application of Act in relation to leases and licences of land and buildings.............................. 134 4J Joint ventures.............................................................................................................................135 4K Loss or damage to include injury...............................................................................................136 4KA Definitions etc that do not apply in Part XI or Schedule 2........................................................ 137 4L Severability.................................................................................................................................137 4M Saving of law relating to restraint of trade and breaches of confidence...................................138 4N Extended application of Part IIIA............................................................................................... 140 5 Extended application of this Act to conduct outside Australia...................................................143 6 Extended application of this Act to persons who are not corporations..................................... 150 6AA Application of the Criminal Code............................................................................................... 158 Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 6A Establishment of Commission....................................................................................................159 7 Constitution of Commission....................................................................................................... 164 8 Terms and conditions of appointment........................................................................................167 8A Associate members................................................................................................................... 167 8AB State/Territory AER members taken to be associate members................................................ 168 9 Remuneration.............................................................................................................................169 10 Deputy Chairpersons................................................................................................................. 169 11 Acting Chairperson.................................................................................................................... 170 12 Leave of absence...................................................................................................................... 171 13 Termination of appointment of members of the Commission....................................................171 14 Termination of appointment of associate members of the Commission................................... 172 15 Resignation................................................................................................................................ 172 16 Arrangement of business........................................................................................................... 172 17 Disclosure of interests by members.......................................................................................... 172 18 Meetings of Commission............................................................................................................173 19 Chairperson may direct Commission to sit in Divisions............................................................ 174 20 Part XI of the Audit Act not to apply to Commission [Repealed].............................................. 175

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

3

CCA

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 (CTH)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

25 26 27 27A 28 29

Delegation by Commission........................................................................................................ 175 Delegation by Commission of certain functions and powers.................................................... 176 Staff of Commission...................................................................................................................176 Consultants................................................................................................................................ 177 Functions of Commission in relation to dissemination of information, law reform and research..................................................................................................................................... 177 Commission to comply with directions of Minister and requirements of the Parliament.......... 180

Part IIA – The National Competition Council 29AA Definitions [Repealed]................................................................................................................ 183 29A Establishment of Council........................................................................................................... 183 29B Functions and powers of Council.............................................................................................. 184 29BA Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on Council............................................. 185 29BB How duty is imposed................................................................................................................. 185 29BC When a State/Territory energy law imposes a duty...................................................................186 29C Membership of Council.............................................................................................................. 186 29D Terms and conditions of office................................................................................................... 187 29E Acting Council President............................................................................................................187 29F Remuneration of Councillors......................................................................................................188 29G Leave of absence...................................................................................................................... 188 29H Termination of appointment of Councillors................................................................................ 188 29I Resignation of Councillors......................................................................................................... 188 29J Arrangement of Council business..............................................................................................189 29K Disclosure of interests by Councillors........................................................................................189 29L Council meetings....................................................................................................................... 190 29LA Resolutions without meetings.................................................................................................... 190 29M Staff to help Council...................................................................................................................191 29N Consultants................................................................................................................................ 191 29O Annual report............................................................................................................................. 191 Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal 29P Definition.................................................................................................................................... 193 30 Constitution of Tribunal.............................................................................................................. 193 31 Qualifications of members of Tribunal....................................................................................... 195 31A Appointment of Judge as presidential member of Tribunal not to affect tenure etc................. 195 32 Terms and conditions of appointment........................................................................................196 33 Remuneration and allowances of members of Tribunal............................................................ 196 34 Acting appointments.................................................................................................................. 196 35 Suspension and removal of members of Tribunal.....................................................................197 36 Resignation................................................................................................................................ 198 37 Constitution of Tribunal for particular matters............................................................................198 38 Validity of determinations........................................................................................................... 199 39 President may give directions....................................................................................................199 40 Disclosure of interests by members of Tribunal........................................................................ 199 41 Presidential member to preside................................................................................................. 200 42 Decision of questions.................................................................................................................200 43 Member of Tribunal ceasing to be available..............................................................................200 43A Counsel assisting Tribunal......................................................................................................... 201 43B Consultants................................................................................................................................ 201 44 Staff of Tribunal..........................................................................................................................201 44A Acting appointments.................................................................................................................. 202

4

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 1 – Preliminary 44AB Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 203 44AC This Part binds the Crown......................................................................................................... 204 44AD Extra-territorial operation............................................................................................................204

Division 3 – Functions and powers of the AER 44AH Commonwealth functions...........................................................................................................205 44AI Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on AER..................................................205 44AJ How duty is imposed................................................................................................................. 206 44AK When a State/Territory energy law etc imposes a duty.............................................................206 44AL Powers of the AER.................................................................................................................... 207 Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER Subdivision A – Appointment etc of members 44AM Appointment of Commonwealth AER member.......................................................................... 207 44AN Membership of AER and Commission.......................................................................................208 44AO Acting appointment of Commonwealth AER member............................................................... 208 44AP Appointment of State/Territory AER members...........................................................................208 44AQ Acting appointment of State/Territory AER member..................................................................209 44AR AER Chair.................................................................................................................................. 209 44AS Acting AER Chair....................................................................................................................... 210 44AT Remuneration of AER members................................................................................................ 210 44AU Additional remuneration of AER Chair.......................................................................................210 44AV Leave of absence.......................................................................................................................211 44AW Other terms and conditions........................................................................................................211 44AX Outside employment.................................................................................................................. 211 44AY Disclosure of interests................................................................................................................211 44AZ Resignation.................................................................................................................................211 44AAB Termination of appointment....................................................................................................... 212 Subdivision B – Staff etc to assist the AER 44AAC Staff etc to assist the AER.........................................................................................................212 Subdivision C – Meetings of the AER etc 44AAD Meetings.....................................................................................................................................213 44AAE Resolutions without meetings.................................................................................................... 213 44AAEA Arbitration................................................................................................................................... 214 Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 44AAF Confidentiality.............................................................................................................................214 44AAG Federal Court may make certain orders....................................................................................215 44AAGA Federal Court may order disconnection if an event specified in the National Electricity Rules occurs.........................................................................................................................................216 44AAH Delegation by the AER.............................................................................................................. 217 44AAI Fees........................................................................................................................................... 217 44AAJ Annual report............................................................................................................................. 217 44AAK Regulations may deal with transitional matters......................................................................... 218 Part IIIAB – Application of the finance law 44AAL Application of the finance law.................................................................................................... 219

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

5

CCA

Division 2 – Establishment of the AER 44AE Establishment of the AER.......................................................................................................... 204 44AF AER to hold money and property on behalf of the Commonwealth......................................... 204 44AG Constitution of the AER............................................................................................................. 204

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary 44AA Objects of Part........................................................................................................................... 224 44B Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 229 44C How this Part applies to partnerships and joint ventures..........................................................235 44D Meaning of designated Minister................................................................................................. 236 44DA The principles in the Competition Principles Agreement have status as guidelines.................237 44E This Part binds the Crown......................................................................................................... 239 Division 2 – Declared services Subdivision A – Recommendation by the Council 44F Person may request recommendation.......................................................................................239 44FA Council may request information............................................................................................... 242 44G Limits on the Council recommending declaration of a service..................................................242 44GA Time limit for Council recommendations................................................................................... 252 44GB Council may invite public submissions on the application........................................................ 254 44GC Council must publish its recommendation................................................................................. 255 Subdivision B – Declaration by the designated Minister 44H Designated Minister may declare a service...............................................................................256 44HA Designated Minister must publish his or her decision...............................................................259 44I Duration and effect of declaration..............................................................................................260 44J Revocation of declaration.......................................................................................................... 261 44JA Target time limits on designated Minister’s revocation decision [Repealed].............................262 44K Review of declaration................................................................................................................ 262 44KA Tribunal may stay operation of declaration............................................................................... 265 44KB Tribunal may order costs be awarded....................................................................................... 266 44L Review of decision not to revoke a declaration.........................................................................267 Division 2AA – Services that are ineligible to be declared Subdivision A – Scope of Division 44LA Constitutional limits on operation of this Division...................................................................... 268 Subdivision B – Ineligibility recommendation by Council 44LB Ineligibility recommendation.......................................................................................................268 44LC Council may request information............................................................................................... 269 44LD Time limit for Council recommendations................................................................................... 270 44LE Council may invite public submissions on the application........................................................ 271 44LF Council must publish its recommendation................................................................................. 272 Subdivision C – Designated Minister’s decision on ineligibility 44LG Designated Minister’s decision on ineligibility............................................................................272 44LH Designated Minister must publish his or her decision...............................................................273 Subdivision D – Revocation of ineligibility decision 44LI Revocation of ineligibility decision............................................................................................. 274 Subdivision E – Review of decisions 44LJ Review of ineligibility decisions..................................................................................................275 44LK Review of decision to revoke or not revoke an ineligibility decision......................................... 276 Subdivision F – Other matters 44LL Ineligibility decisions subject to alteration, cancellation etc.......................................................277 Division 2A – Effective access regimes Subdivision A – Recommendation by Council 44M Recommendation for a Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime.......................277 44MA Council may request information............................................................................................... 280

6

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Subdivision B – Decision by Commonwealth Minister 44N Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime.............................................................281 Subdivision C – Extensions of Commonwealth Minister’s decision 44NA Recommendation by Council..................................................................................................... 282 44NAA Council may request information............................................................................................... 282 44NB Decision by the Commonwealth Minister.................................................................................. 283 Subdivision D – Procedural provisions 44NC Time limit for Council recommendations................................................................................... 285 44ND Target time limits—Commonwealth Minister [Repealed]........................................................... 287 44NE Council may invite public submissions...................................................................................... 287 44NF Publication—Council.................................................................................................................. 288 44NG Publication—Commonwealth Minister....................................................................................... 288

Subdivision F – State or Territory ceasing to be a party to Competition Principles Agreement 44P State or Territory ceasing to be a party to Competition Principles Agreement......................... 290 Division 2B 44PA 44PAA 44PB 44PC 44PD 44PE 44PF 44PG 44PH

– Competitive tender processes for government owned facilities Approval of competitive tender process.................................................................................... 291 Commission may request information....................................................................................... 292 Report on conduct of tender process........................................................................................ 292 Revocation of approval decision................................................................................................293 Time limit for Commission decisions......................................................................................... 294 Commission may invite public submissions.............................................................................. 295 Commission must publish its decisions..................................................................................... 295 Review of Commission’s initial decision.................................................................................... 296 Review of decision to revoke an approval.................................................................................297

Division 2C – Register of decisions and declarations 44Q Register of decisions, declarations and ineligibility decisions................................................... 298 Division 3 – Access to declared services Subdivision A – Scope of Division 44R Constitutional limits on operation of this Division...................................................................... 299 Subdivision B – Notification of access disputes 44S Notification of access disputes.................................................................................................. 299 44T Withdrawal of notifications......................................................................................................... 300 Subdivision C – Arbitration of access disputes 44U Parties to the arbitration............................................................................................................ 301 44V Determination by Commission................................................................................................... 301 44W Restrictions on access determinations...................................................................................... 302 44X Matters that the Commission must take into account............................................................... 304 44XA Time limit for Commission’s final determination........................................................................ 305 44Y Commission may terminate arbitration in certain cases............................................................306 44YA Commission must terminate arbitration if declaration varied or set aside by Tribunal............. 307 Subdivision D – Procedure in arbitrations 44Z Constitution of Commission for conduct of arbitration...............................................................307 44ZA Member of the Commission presiding at an arbitration............................................................ 307 44ZB Reconstitution of Commission................................................................................................... 307 44ZC Determination of questions........................................................................................................ 307 44ZD Hearing to be in private............................................................................................................. 308 44ZE Right to representation.............................................................................................................. 308

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

7

CCA

Subdivision E – Review of decisions 44O Review of Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime........................................... 289

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

44ZF 44ZG 44ZH 44ZI 44ZJ 44ZK 44ZL 44ZM 44ZN 44ZNA

Procedure of Commission..........................................................................................................308 Particular powers of Commission.............................................................................................. 308 Power to take evidence on oath or affirmation..........................................................................309 Failing to attend as a witness.................................................................................................... 309 Failing to answer questions etc................................................................................................. 310 Intimidation etc........................................................................................................................... 310 Party may request Commission to treat material as confidential..............................................310 Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to the Commission in an arbitration..................................... 311 Parties to pay costs of an arbitration......................................................................................... 311 Joint arbitration hearings............................................................................................................311

Subdivision DA – Arbitration reports 44ZNB Arbitration reports...................................................................................................................... 312 Subdivision E – Effect of determinations 44ZO Operation of final determinations...............................................................................................313 44ZOA Effect and duration of interim determinations............................................................................314 Subdivision F – Review of final determinations 44ZP Review by Tribunal.................................................................................................................... 315 44ZQ Provisions that do not apply in relation to a Tribunal review.................................................... 317 44ZR Appeals to Federal Court from determinations of the Tribunal................................................. 317 44ZS Operation and implementation of a determination that is subject to appeal.............................318 44ZT Transmission of documents....................................................................................................... 318 Subdivision G – Variation and revocation of determinations 44ZU Variation of final determinations.................................................................................................318 44ZUA Variation and revocation of interim determinations................................................................... 319 Division 4 – Registered contracts for access to declared services 44ZV Constitutional limits on operation of this Division...................................................................... 319 44ZW Registration of contract.............................................................................................................. 319 44ZX Review of decision not to register contract............................................................................... 320 44ZY Effect of registration of contract.................................................................................................321 Division 5 – Hindering access to declared services 44ZZ Prohibition on hindering access to declared services............................................................... 321 Division 6 – Access undertakings and access codes for services Subdivision A – Giving of access undertakings and access codes 44ZZA Access undertakings by providers............................................................................................. 322 44ZZAAA Proposed amendments to access undertakings........................................................................325 44ZZAAB Access undertakings containing fixed principles....................................................................... 326 44ZZAA Access codes prepared by industry bodies...............................................................................327 44ZZAB Commission may rely on industry body consultations.............................................................. 330 44ZZB Undertakings cannot be accepted in certain cases [Repealed]................................................ 330 Subdivision B – Effect of access undertakings and access codes 44ZZBA When access undertakings and access codes come into operation........................................ 330 Subdivision C – Extensions of access undertakings and access codes 44ZZBB Extensions of access undertakings and access codes............................................................. 331 Subdivision D – Procedural provisions 44ZZBC Time limit for Commission decisions......................................................................................... 332 44ZZBCA Commission may request information....................................................................................... 334 44ZZBD Commission may invite public submissions.............................................................................. 334 44ZZBE Commission must publish its decisions..................................................................................... 335 Subdivision E – Review of decisions 44ZZBF Review of decisions................................................................................................................... 335

8

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Subdivision F – Register of access undertakings and access codes 44ZZC Register of access undertakings and access codes................................................................. 337 Division 6A – Pricing principles for access disputes and access undertakings or codes 44ZZCA Pricing principles for access disputes and access undertakings or codes............................... 337

Division 7 – Enforcement and remedies 44ZZD Enforcement of determinations.................................................................................................. 340 44ZZE Enforcement of prohibition on hindering access....................................................................... 341 44ZZF Consent injunctions....................................................................................................................342 44ZZG Interim injunctions...................................................................................................................... 342 44ZZH Factors relevant to granting a restraining injunction................................................................. 342 44ZZI Factors relevant to granting a mandatory injunction................................................................. 342 44ZZJ Enforcement of access undertakings.........................................................................................342 44ZZK Discharge or variation of injunction or other order.................................................................... 343 Division 8 – Miscellaneous 44ZZL Register of determinations......................................................................................................... 343 44ZZM Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on the Commission or Tribunal by State or Territory laws................................................................................................................ 343 44ZZMA How duty is imposed................................................................................................................. 344 44ZZMB When a law of a State or Territory imposes a duty...................................................................345 44ZZN Compensation for acquisition of property.................................................................................. 345 44ZZNA Operation of Parts IV and VII not affected by this Part.............................................................345 44ZZO Conduct by directors, servants or agents..................................................................................346 44ZZOAAA Information to be given to Tribunal............................................................................................ 347 44ZZOAA Tribunal only to consider particular material..............................................................................348 44ZZOA Time limit for Tribunal decisions................................................................................................ 348 44ZZP Regulations about review by the Tribunal................................................................................. 350 44ZZQ Regulations about fees for inspection etc of registers.............................................................. 351 44ZZR Procedure of the Tribunal when performing functions under a State/Territory energy law or a designated Commonwealth energy law.....................................................................................351 Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct Subdivision A – Introduction 44ZZRA Simplified outline........................................................................................................................ 353 44ZZRB Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 356 44ZZRC Extended meaning of party........................................................................................................357 44ZZRD Cartel provisions........................................................................................................................ 358 44ZZRE Meaning of expressions in other provisions of this Act............................................................. 371 Subdivision B – Offences etc 44ZZRF Making a contract etc containing a cartel provision.................................................................. 371 44ZZRG Giving effect to a cartel provision.............................................................................................. 375 44ZZRH Determining guilt........................................................................................................................ 375 44ZZRI Court may make related civil orders..........................................................................................376 Subdivision C – Civil penalty provisions 44ZZRJ Making a contract etc containing a cartel provision.................................................................. 376

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

9

CCA

Division 6B – Overlap among determinations, registered contracts, access undertakings and Tribunal review 44ZZCB Deferring access disputes or access undertakings................................................................... 338 44ZZCBA Deferral of arbitration if review is underway.............................................................................. 339 44ZZCC Overlap between determinations and access undertakings......................................................340 44ZZCD Overlap between registered contracts and access undertakings..............................................340

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

44ZZRK

Giving effect to a cartel provision.............................................................................................. 386

Subdivision D – Exceptions 44ZZRL Conduct notified......................................................................................................................... 386 44ZZRM Cartel provision subject to grant of authorisation...................................................................... 387 44ZZRN Contracts, arrangements or understandings between related bodies corporate...................... 387 44ZZRO Joint ventures—prosecution...................................................................................................... 387 44ZZRP Joint ventures—civil penalty proceedings..................................................................................392 44ZZRQ Covenants affecting competition................................................................................................394 44ZZRR Resale price maintenance......................................................................................................... 394 44ZZRS Exclusive dealing....................................................................................................................... 394 44ZZRT Dual listed company arrangement............................................................................................. 396 44ZZRU Acquisition of shares or assets..................................................................................................396 44ZZRV Collective acquisition of goods or services by the parties to a contract, arrangement or understanding............................................................................................................................ 397 Division 1A 44ZZS 44ZZT 44ZZU 44ZZV 44ZZW 44ZZX 44ZZY 44ZZZ 44ZZZA 44ZZZB

– Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing and other information Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 398 Goods and services to which this Division applies................................................................... 398 Provisions affecting whether a corporation has disclosed information to a person.................. 399 Meaning of private disclosure to competitors.............................................................................400 Corporation must not make private disclosure of pricing information etc to competitors......... 400 Corporation must not make disclosure of pricing information etc for purpose of substantially lessening competition................................................................................................................ 402 Exceptions that apply to sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX.............................................................. 403 Additional exceptions that only apply to section 44ZZW...........................................................404 Burden of proof.......................................................................................................................... 406 Mere receipt of information does not constitute being knowingly involved in contravention.... 406

Division 2 – Other provisions 45 Contracts, arrangements or understandings that restrict dealings or affect competition..........406 45A Contracts, arrangements or understandings in relation to prices [Repealed]...........................432 45B Covenants affecting competition................................................................................................432 45C Covenants in relation to prices.................................................................................................. 437 45D Secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage........................... 439 45DA Secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial lessening of competition............. 445 45DB Boycotts affecting trade or commerce....................................................................................... 447 45DC Involvement and liability of employee organisations................................................................. 448 45DD Situations in which boycotts permitted...................................................................................... 450 45E Prohibition of contracts, arrangements or understandings affecting the supply or acquisition of goods or services.................................................................................................................. 453 45EA Provisions contravening section 45E not to be given effect..................................................... 456 45EB Sections 45D to 45EA do not affect operation of other provisions of Part............................... 457 46 Misuse of market power.............................................................................................................457 46A Misuse of market power—corporation with substantial degree of power in trans-Tasman market........................................................................................................................................ 488 46B No immunity from jurisdiction in relation to certain New Zealand laws.................................... 490 47 Exclusive dealing....................................................................................................................... 491 48 Resale price maintenance......................................................................................................... 510 49 Dual listed company arrangements that affect competition...................................................... 519 50 Prohibition of acquisitions that would result in a substantial lessening of competition.............520 50A Acquisitions that occur outside Australia................................................................................... 544 51 Exceptions..................................................................................................................................547 51AAA Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws......................................................................559

10

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Part IVB – Industry codes Division 1 – Preliminary 51ACA Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 561 Division 2 – Contravention of industry codes 51ACB Contravention of industry codes................................................................................................ 562 – Infringement notices Purpose and effect of this Division............................................................................................ 565 Issuing an infringement notice................................................................................................... 565 Matters to be included in an infringement notice...................................................................... 565 Amount of penalty...................................................................................................................... 566 Effect of compliance with an infringement notice...................................................................... 566 Effect of failure to comply with an infringement notice..............................................................566 Infringement notice compliance period for infringement notice.................................................567 Withdrawal of an infringement notice........................................................................................ 567

Division 3 – Public warning notices 51ADA Commission may issue a public warning notice........................................................................568 Division 4 – Orders to redress loss or damage suffered by non-parties etc 51ADB Orders to redress loss or damage suffered by non-parties etc................................................ 568 51ADC Kinds of orders that may be made to redress loss or damage suffered by non-parties etc.... 570 Division 5 – Investigation power 51ADD Commission may require corporation to provide information....................................................570 51ADE Extending periods for complying with notices........................................................................... 571 51ADF Compliance with notices............................................................................................................ 571 51ADG False or misleading information etc...........................................................................................571 Division 6 – Miscellaneous 51AE Regulations relating to industry codes.......................................................................................572 51AEA Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws......................................................................574 Part IVC – Payment surcharges Division 1 – Preliminary 55 Object of this Part...................................................................................................................... 575 55A Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 575 Division 2 – Limit on payment surcharges 55B Payment surcharges must not be excessive.............................................................................575 Division 3 – Information about payment surcharges 55C Surcharge information notices................................................................................................... 576 55D Extending periods for complying with notices........................................................................... 576 55E Participant must comply with notice.......................................................................................... 576 Division 4 – Infringement notices 55F Purpose and effect of this Division............................................................................................ 577 55G Issuing an infringement notice................................................................................................... 577 55H Matters to be included in an infringement notice...................................................................... 577 55J Amount of penalty...................................................................................................................... 578 55K Effect of compliance with an infringement notice...................................................................... 578 55L Effect of failure to comply with an infringement notice..............................................................578 55M Infringement notice compliance period for infringement notice.................................................578 55N Withdrawal of an infringement notice........................................................................................ 579 Part V – Carbon tax price reduction obligation Division 1 – Preliminary 60 Simplified outline of this Part..................................................................................................... 581

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

11

CCA

Division 2A 51ACC 51ACD 51ACE 51ACF 51ACG 51ACH 51ACI 51ACJ

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

60AA 60A 60B

Objects etc................................................................................................................................. 582 Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 582 Regulated goods........................................................................................................................ 585

Division 2 – Carbon tax price reduction obligation 60C Price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal............................................................... 585 60CA Failure to pass on cost savings—250% penalty....................................................................... 586 60D Notice to entity that is considered to have engaged in price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal....................................................................................................................... 587 60E Commission may issue notice to aid prevention of price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal................................................................................................................................... 588 60F Acquisition of property............................................................................................................... 588 Division 2A 60FA 60FB 60FC

– Carbon tax removal substantiation notices Carbon tax removal substantiation notices................................................................................589 Extending periods for complying with carbon tax removal substantiation notices....................590 Compliance with carbon tax removal substantiation notices.....................................................590

Division 2B – Carbon tax removal substantiation statements 60FD Carbon tax removal substantiation statements......................................................................... 591 Division 2C – Statements for customers 60FE Statements for customers.......................................................................................................... 592 Division 3 – Price monitoring in relation to the carbon tax repeal etc 60G Commission may monitor prices in relation to the carbon tax repeal etc.................................593 60H Information-gathering powers.................................................................................................... 595 60J Reporting....................................................................................................................................596 Division 4 – False or misleading representations about the effect of the carbon tax repeal etc on prices 60K False or misleading representations about the effect of the carbon tax repeal etc on prices 596 Division 5 – Infringement notices 60L Issuing an infringement notice................................................................................................... 597 60M Effect of compliance with an infringement notice...................................................................... 598 60N Effect of failure to comply with an infringement notice..............................................................598 60P Infringement notice compliance period for infringement notice.................................................598 60Q Withdrawal of an infringement notice........................................................................................ 599 60R Effect of this Division................................................................................................................. 600 Part VI – Enforcement and remedies 75B Interpretation.............................................................................................................................. 601 76 Pecuniary penalties....................................................................................................................603 76A Defence to proceedings under section 76 relating to a contravention of section 95AZN........ 634 76B What happens if substantially the same conduct is a contravention of Part IV or section 95AZN and an offence?.............................................................................................................635 76C Defence to proceedings relating to exclusionary provisions..................................................... 636 76D Defence to proceedings relating to price fixing provisions [Repealed]..................................... 637 77 Civil action for recovery of pecuniary penalties.........................................................................637 77A Indemnification of officers.......................................................................................................... 639 77B Certain indemnities not authorised and certain documents void.............................................. 639 77C Application of section 77A to a person other than a body corporate........................................639 78 Criminal proceedings not to be brought for contraventions of Part IV......................................640 79 Offences against section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG..........................................................................640 79A Enforcement and recovery of certain fines................................................................................651 79B Preference must be given to compensation for victims............................................................ 652 80 Injunctions.................................................................................................................................. 653

12

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

80A 80AA 80AB 80AC 80B 81 81A 82 83 84 85 86 86AA 86A 86B 86C 86D 86DA 86E 86F 87 87AA 87B 87C 87CA 87CAA

Price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal—orders limiting prices or requiring refunds of money....................................................................................................................... 673 Division 7 of Part VI of the Workplace Relations Act does not prevent granting of injunction [Repealed].................................................................................................................................. 674 Stay of injunctions......................................................................................................................674 Injunctions to prevent mergers if clearance or authorisation granted on the basis of false or misleading information............................................................................................................... 675 Section 75AU contraventions—orders limiting prices or requiring refunds of money [Repealed].................................................................................................................................. 675 Divestiture where merger contravenes section 50 or 50A........................................................ 676 Divestiture where merger done under clearance or authorisation granted on false etc information................................................................................................................................. 679 Actions for damages.................................................................................................................. 680 Finding in proceedings to be evidence......................................................................................688 Conduct by directors, employees or agents.............................................................................. 691 Defences.................................................................................................................................... 699 Jurisdiction of courts.................................................................................................................. 699 Limit on jurisdiction of Federal Circuit Court............................................................................. 719 Transfer of matters.....................................................................................................................719 Transfer of certain proceedings to Family Court [Repealed].....................................................722 Non-punitive orders....................................................................................................................722 Punitive orders—adverse publicity.............................................................................................730 Commission may issue a public warning notice [Repealed]..................................................... 731 Order disqualifying a person from managing corporations....................................................... 731 Privilege against exposure to penalty—disqualification from managing corporations.............. 732 Other orders............................................................................................................................... 733 Special provision relating to Court’s exercise of powers under this Part in relation to boycott conduct.......................................................................................................................................746 Enforcement of undertakings..................................................................................................... 747 Enforcement of undertakings—Secretary of the Department....................................................754 Intervention by Commission.......................................................................................................754 The effect of Part VIB on this Part [Repealed]..........................................................................755

Part VIA – Proportionate liability for misleading and deceptive conduct 87CB Application of Part......................................................................................................................757 87CC Certain concurrent wrongdoers not to have benefit of apportionment......................................758 87CD Proportionate liability for apportionable claims.......................................................................... 759 87CE Defendant to notify plaintiff of concurrent wrongdoer of whom defendant aware.................... 760 87CF Contribution not recoverable from defendant............................................................................ 760 87CG Subsequent actions................................................................................................................... 760 87CH Joining non-party concurrent wrongdoer in the action.............................................................. 761 87CI Application of Part......................................................................................................................761 Part VIB – Claims for damages or compensation for death or personal injury Division 1 – Introduction 87D Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 763 87E Proceedings to which this Part applies......................................................................................764 Division 2 – Limitation periods 87F Basic rule................................................................................................................................... 765 87G Date of discoverability................................................................................................................766 87H Long-stop period........................................................................................................................ 767 87J The effect of minority or incapacity............................................................................................767 87K The effect of close relationships................................................................................................ 767

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

13

CCA

Table of provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Division 3 – Limits on personal injury damages for non-economic loss 87L Limits on damages for non-economic loss................................................................................ 768 87M Maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss..............................................................768 87N Index numbers........................................................................................................................... 768 87P Most extreme cases...................................................................................................................769 87Q Cases of 33% or more (but not 100%) of a most extreme case.............................................. 769 87R Cases of 15% or more (but less than 33%) of a most extreme case.......................................769 87S Cases of less than 15% of a most extreme case..................................................................... 770 87T Referring to earlier decisions on non-economic loss................................................................ 770 Division 4 – Limits on personal injury damages for loss of earning capacity 87U Personal injury damages for loss of earning capacity...............................................................770 87V Average weekly earnings...........................................................................................................771 Division 5 – Limits on personal injury damages for gratuitous attendant care services 87W Personal injury damages for gratuitous attendant care services for plaintiff............................ 771 87X Personal injury damages for loss of plaintiff’s capacity to provide gratuitous attendant care services...................................................................................................................................... 772 Division 6 – Other limits on personal injury damages 87Y Damages for future economic loss—discount rate....................................................................773 87Z Damages for loss of superannuation entitlements.................................................................... 773 87ZA Interest on damages.................................................................................................................. 774 87ZB Exemplary and aggravated damages........................................................................................ 774 Division 7 – Structured settlements 87ZC Court may make orders under section 87 for structured settlements.......................................775 Part VII – Authorisations, notifications and clearances in respect of restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Authorisations (other than section 50 merger authorisations) 87ZP Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 777 88 Power of Commission to grant authorisations...........................................................................777 89 Procedure for applications and the keeping of a register......................................................... 788 90 Determination of applications for authorisations........................................................................795 90A Commission to afford opportunity for conference before determining application for authorisation...............................................................................................................................836 90B Commission may rely on consultations undertaken by the AEMC........................................... 839 91 Grant and variation of authorisations.........................................................................................840 91A Minor variations of authorizations.............................................................................................. 844 91B Revocation of an authorization.................................................................................................. 846 91C Revocation of an authorization and substitution of a replacement........................................... 851 Division 2 – Notifications 92 Clearances [Repealed].............................................................................................................. 853 Subdivision A – Exclusive dealing and private disclosure of pricing information 93 Notification of exclusive dealing or private disclosure of pricing information............................853 Subdivision B – Collective bargaining 93AA Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 864 93AB Notification of collective bargaining........................................................................................... 865 93AC Commission’s objection notice...................................................................................................873 93AD When collective bargaining notice comes into force and ceases to be in force.......................875 93AE Withdrawal of collective bargaining notice.................................................................................877 93AEA Only 1 collective bargaining notice under subsection 93AB(1A) may be given....................... 877 93AF Only 1 collective bargaining notice under subsection 93AB(1) may be given..........................878 Subdivision C – Conferences 93A Commission to afford opportunity for conference before giving notice..................................... 878

14

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

94

Merger clearances [Repealed]...................................................................................................880

Subdivision D – Register of notifications 95 Register of notifications............................................................................................................. 880 Division 3 – Merger clearances and authorisations

Subdivision B – Merger clearances 95AC Commission may grant clearance for a merger........................................................................ 884 95AD Application for clearance........................................................................................................... 885 95AE Requirements for valid clearance application............................................................................886 95AF Commission to notify if clearance application is invalid............................................................ 886 95AG Application to be published on the internet............................................................................... 886 95AH Merger clearance register.......................................................................................................... 886 95AI Confidentiality claims etc........................................................................................................... 887 95AJ Commission may seek additional information from applicant................................................... 888 95AK Commission may seek further information and consult others................................................. 888 95AL Applicant may withdraw application...........................................................................................888 95AM Commission to make determination on application...................................................................888 95AN When clearance must not be granted....................................................................................... 889 95AO Time limits for determining application...................................................................................... 889 95AP Clearance subject to conditions.................................................................................................889 95AQ When clearance is in force........................................................................................................ 890 95AR Minor variations of clearances................................................................................................... 890 95AS Revocation of clearance or revocation of clearance and substitution of a new clearance.......892 Subdivision C – Merger authorisations 95AT Tribunal may grant authorisation for a merger.......................................................................... 895 95AU Application for authorisation.......................................................................................................897 95AV Requirements for valid authorisation application.......................................................................898 95AW Tribunal to notify if authorisation application is invalid.............................................................. 899 95AX Tribunal to notify Commission of authorisation application....................................................... 899 95AY Application to be published on the internet............................................................................... 899 95AZ Merger authorisation register..................................................................................................... 899 95AZA Confidentiality claims etc........................................................................................................... 900 95AZC Tribunal may seek additional information from applicant.......................................................... 901 95AZD Tribunal may seek further information and consult others etc.................................................. 901 95AZE Applicant may withdraw application...........................................................................................901 95AZEA Tribunal must require Commission to give report..................................................................... 901 95AZF Commission to assist Tribunal................................................................................................... 902 95AZFA Commission may make enquiries..............................................................................................902 95AZG Tribunal to make determination on application..........................................................................902 95AZH When authorisation must not be granted.................................................................................. 903 95AZI Time limits for determining application...................................................................................... 904 95AZJ Authorisation subject to conditions............................................................................................ 904 95AZK When authorisation is in force................................................................................................... 905 95AZL Minor variations of authorisations.............................................................................................. 905 95AZM Revocation of authorisation or revocation of authorisation and substitution of a new authorisation...............................................................................................................................907 Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 95AZN Providing false or misleading information..................................................................................910

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

15

CCA

Subdivision A – Preliminary 95AA Simplified outline of this Division............................................................................................... 882 95AB Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 884

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Part VIIA – Prices surveillance Division 1 – Preliminary 95A Interpretation.............................................................................................................................. 911 95B Exempt supplies.........................................................................................................................913 95C Application of Part......................................................................................................................914 95D Crown to be bound.................................................................................................................... 914 95E Object of this Part...................................................................................................................... 915 95F Simplified overview of this Part..................................................................................................915 Division 2 – Commission’s functions under this Part 95G Commission’s functions under this Part.................................................................................... 915 Division 3 – Price inquiries Subdivision A – Holding of inquiries 95H Price inquiries............................................................................................................................ 916 95J Content of inquiry notices.......................................................................................................... 917 95K Period for completing inquiry..................................................................................................... 917 95L Notice of holding of inquiry........................................................................................................ 918 95M Notice of extension of period for completing inquiry................................................................. 918 95N Price restrictions........................................................................................................................ 919 Subdivision B – Reports on inquiries 95P Copies of report to be made available...................................................................................... 920 95Q Notification of proposed prices after receipt of report............................................................... 921 Subdivision C – Procedure at inquiries 95R Public inquiries etc..................................................................................................................... 921 95S Taking of evidence on oath or affirmation................................................................................. 922 95T Failure of witness to attend........................................................................................................922 95U Refusal to be sworn or to answer question...............................................................................923 95V Protection of witnesses.............................................................................................................. 923 95W Allowances to witnesses............................................................................................................ 923 Division 4 – Price notifications 95X Declarations by Minister or Commission................................................................................... 924 95Y Declarations in relation to State or Territory authorities............................................................ 924 95Z Price restrictions........................................................................................................................ 925 95ZA Later notices modifying a locality notice....................................................................................927 95ZB Applicable period in relation to a locality notice........................................................................ 927 95ZC Register of price notifications.....................................................................................................928 95ZD Delegation by Commission........................................................................................................ 929 Division 5 – Price monitoring 95ZE Directions to monitor prices, costs and profits of an industry................................................... 929 95ZF Directions to monitor prices, costs and profits of a business....................................................930 95ZG Exceptions to price monitoring...................................................................................................930 Division 6 – Other provisions 95ZH Ministerial directions.................................................................................................................. 931 95ZI Inquiries by an unincorporated body or a group of 2 or more individuals................................ 931 95ZJ Withdrawal of notices.................................................................................................................931 95ZK Power to obtain information or documents................................................................................932 95ZL Inspection of documents etc...................................................................................................... 933 95ZM Retention of documents............................................................................................................. 934 95ZN Confidential information............................................................................................................. 934 95ZO Immunity.....................................................................................................................................935 95ZP Secrecy: members or staff members of the Commission etc................................................... 935

16

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

95ZQ

Secrecy: persons involved in inquiries by bodies other than the Commission.........................936

Part VIII – Resale price maintenance 96 Acts constituting engaging in resale price maintenance........................................................... 939 96A Resale price maintenance in relation to services......................................................................947 97 Recommended prices................................................................................................................ 947 98 Withholding the supply of goods................................................................................................948 99 Statements as to the minimum price of goods..........................................................................950 100 Evidentiary provisions................................................................................................................ 951 Part IX – Review by Tribunal of Determinations of Commission

Division 2 – Procedure and Evidence 102A Definition.................................................................................................................................... 969 103 Procedure generally................................................................................................................... 969 104 Regulations as to certain matters.............................................................................................. 973 105 Power to take evidence on oath................................................................................................ 973 106 Hearings to be in public except in special circumstances.........................................................974 107 Evidence in form of written statement....................................................................................... 974 108 Taking of evidence by single member....................................................................................... 975 109 Participants in proceedings before Tribunal.............................................................................. 975 110 Representation........................................................................................................................... 976 Division 3 – Review of Commission’s determinations on merger clearances 111 Applications for review............................................................................................................... 976 112 Tribunal to notify Commission................................................................................................... 977 113 Commission to give material to Tribunal................................................................................... 977 114 Tribunal may consult etc to clarify information.......................................................................... 977 115 Commission to assist Tribunal................................................................................................... 978 116 Tribunal only to consider material before the Commission....................................................... 978 117 Tribunal to make decision on review......................................................................................... 978 118 Time limits for making review decision...................................................................................... 978 119 Tribunal’s decision taken to be Commission’s.......................................................................... 978 Part X – International liner cargo shipping Division 1 – Preliminary 10.01 Objects of Part........................................................................................................................... 979 10.01A Simplified outline........................................................................................................................ 980 10.02 Interpretation.............................................................................................................................. 981 10.02A Inland terminals..........................................................................................................................987 10.03 Designated shipper bodies........................................................................................................ 987 Division 2 – Additional restrictive trade practice provisions applying to ocean carriers 10.04 Application of section 46 in relation to conference agreements............................................... 989 10.05 Discrimination between shippers prohibited [Repealed]............................................................989 Division 3 – Minimum standards for conference agreements 10.06 Application of Australian law to outwards conference agreements and withdrawal from agreements................................................................................................................................ 989 10.07 Minimum levels of shipping services to be specified in conference agreements..................... 989 10.08 Conference agreements may include only certain restrictive trade practice provisions........... 990 10.09 Where may consequences of conference agreements not complying with minimum standards be found?.................................................................................................................. 990

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

17

CCA

Division 1 – Applications for review (other than for merger clearances) 101 Applications for review............................................................................................................... 953 101A Application for review of notice under subsection 93(3) or (3A) or 93AC(1) or (2).................. 958 102 Functions and powers of Tribunal..............................................................................................958

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Division 4 – Registers and files and public inspection of them 10.10 Registers and conference agreement files open to public inspection.......................................991 10.11 What registers are to be kept by the Registrar?....................................................................... 991 10.12 What conference agreement files are to be kept by the Registrar?......................................... 992 10.13 What register is to be kept by the Commission?...................................................................... 992 Division 5 – Exemptions from certain restrictive trade practice prohibitions Subdivision A – Exemptions relating to conference agreements 10.14 Exemptions apply only to certain activities................................................................................992 10.15 When do exemptions commence to apply in relation to registered conference agreements? 993 10.15A Application of exemptions to inwards liner cargo shipping services [Repealed]...................... 993 10.16 Exemptions do not apply to variations of conference agreement unless varying agreement registered................................................................................................................................... 993 10.17 Exemptions from sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK and 45.................................993 10.17A Exemptions from sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK and 45 for freight rate agreements................................................................................................................................ 994 10.18 Exemption from section 47........................................................................................................ 995 10.18A Exemptions from section 47 for freight rate agreements.......................................................... 995 Subdivision B – Exemptions relating to loyalty agreements 10.19 Exemptions from sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK and 45.................................996 10.20 Exemption from section 47........................................................................................................ 996 10.21 Exemptions cease to apply in relation to a shipper at the shipper’s option............................. 996 10.21A Application of exemptions to inwards liner cargo shipping services [Repealed]...................... 996 Subdivision D – Other exemptions 10.24 Exemptions from sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK, 45 and 47 in relation to certain negotiations.................................................................................................................... 997 10.24A Exemptions from sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK, 45 and 47 in relation to stevedoring contracts................................................................................................................. 997 Division 6 – Registration of conference agreements Subdivision A – Provisional registration 10.25 Application for provisional registration of conference agreement............................................. 998 10.26 How application is to be made and verified.............................................................................. 998 10.27 Copy of agreement to be filed with application etc................................................................... 999 10.27A Copy of conference agreement to be given to designated peak shipper body........................ 999 10.28 Decision on application for provisional registration................................................................. 1000 10.29 Parties to conference agreement to negotiate minimum level of shipping services after provisional registration of agreement.......................................................................................1001 Subdivision B – Final registration 10.30 Application for final registration of conference agreement...................................................... 1002 10.31 How application is to be made and verified............................................................................ 1002 10.32 Copy of agreement to be filed with application etc................................................................. 1003 10.33 Decision on application for final registration............................................................................1003 Subdivision C – Confidentiality requests 10.34 Request for confidentiality....................................................................................................... 1004 10.35 Abstract to accompany request for confidentiality...................................................................1005 10.36 Examination of abstract........................................................................................................... 1005 10.37 Decision on request for confidentiality.....................................................................................1005 10.38 Application for registration to be returned where request for confidentiality refused etc........1006 Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 10.39 Application also to be made for registration of varying conference agreements....................1006 10.40 Notification of happening of affecting events prior to final registration etc............................. 1007

18

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Division 8 – Powers of Minister in relation to registered conference agreements 10.44 Powers exercisable by Minister in relation to registered conference agreements etc............1010 10.45 Circumstances in which Minister may exercise powers in relation to registered conference agreements...............................................................................................................................1011 10.46 Action to be taken where powers exercised by Minister without first obtaining Commission report........................................................................................................................................ 1013 10.47 Investigation and report by Commission on reference by Minister......................................... 1014 10.48 Investigation and report by Commission on own initiative or on application by affected person...................................................................................................................................... 1014 10.49 Undertakings by parties to registered conference agreement................................................ 1015 10.49A Enforcement of undertakings................................................................................................... 1016 Division 9 – Obligations of non-conference ocean carriers with substantial market power 10.50 Investigations by Commission into market power of ocean carriers.......................................1016 10.51 Determination by Minister of market power of ocean carriers................................................ 1017 10.52 Non-conference ocean carrier with substantial market power to negotiate with certain designated shipper bodies etc................................................................................................. 1017 10.53 Non-conference ocean carrier with substantial market power not to hinder Australian flag shipping operators etc............................................................................................................. 1019 Division 10 – Powers of Minister in relation to non-conference ocean carriers with substantial market power 10.54 Powers exercisable by Minister in relation to obligations of non-conference ocean carriers with substantial market power................................................................................................. 1019 10.55 Circumstances in which Minister may exercise powers.......................................................... 1019 10.56 Action to be taken where powers exercised by Minister without first obtaining Commission report........................................................................................................................................ 1020 10.57 Investigation and report by Commission on reference by Minister......................................... 1020 10.58 Investigation and report by Commission on application by affected person...........................1021 10.59 Undertakings by ocean carrier.................................................................................................1021 10.60 Enforcement of orders and undertakings................................................................................ 1022 Division 11 – Unfair pricing practices 10.61 Powers exercisable by Minister in relation to pricing practices etc.........................................1022 10.62 Circumstances in which Minister may exercise powers.......................................................... 1022 10.63 Investigation and report by Commission................................................................................. 1023 10.64 Undertakings not to engage in pricing practices..................................................................... 1023 10.65 Enforcement of orders and undertakings................................................................................ 1024 10.66 Determination of normal freight rates for shipping services....................................................1024 10.67 Determination of whether practice contrary to national interest..............................................1024 Division 12 – Registration of ocean carrier agents 10.68 Ocean carrier who provides international liner cargo shipping services to have registered agent........................................................................................................................................ 1025 10.69 Representation of ocean carrier by registered agent.............................................................. 1025 10.70 Application by ocean carrier for registration of agent..............................................................1026 10.71 Registration of agent................................................................................................................1026 10.72 Change of agent etc................................................................................................................ 1027 Division 12A – Exemption orders for inwards conference agreements etc 10.72A Exemption orders for inwards conference agreements etc.....................................................1027

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

19

CCA

Division 7 – Obligations of ocean carriers in relation to registered conference agreements 10.41 Parties to registered conference agreement to negotiate with certain designated shipper bodies etc.................................................................................................................................1007 10.42 Application to be made for registration of varying conference agreements............................1009 10.43 Parties to registered conference agreement to notify happening of affecting events etc.......1009

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

10.72B 10.72C 10.72D

Criteria for making exemption order........................................................................................ 1028 Duration of exemption order may be limited........................................................................... 1028 Conditions of exemption order.................................................................................................1029

Division 13 – General provisions relating to registers and conference agreement files 10.73 Form of registers and conference agreement files..................................................................1029 10.74 Deletion of entries wrongly existing in certain registers.......................................................... 1029 10.75 Deletion of obsolete entries in certain registers...................................................................... 1029 10.76 Correction of clerical errors and other mistakes in certain registers etc.................................1029 Division 14 – Administration 10.77 Registrar of Liner Shipping...................................................................................................... 1029 10.78 Appointment of Registrar etc................................................................................................... 1029 10.79 Acting Registrar....................................................................................................................... 1029 10.80 Registrar and staff to be public servants.................................................................................1030 10.81 Delegation by Minister............................................................................................................. 1030 10.82 Delegation by Registrar........................................................................................................... 1030 Division 14A 10.82A 10.82B 10.82C

– Review of decisions of Commission Review by Tribunal.................................................................................................................. 1030 Functions and powers of Tribunal............................................................................................1031 Provisions that do not apply in relation to a Tribunal review.................................................. 1031

Division 14B 10.82D 10.82E 10.82F 10.82G

– Review of decisions of Minister Review by Tribunal.................................................................................................................. 1031 Functions and powers of Tribunal............................................................................................1032 Modifying register after Tribunal review...................................................................................1032 Provisions that do not apply in relation to a Tribunal review.................................................. 1033

Division 15 – Miscellaneous 10.83 Act not to affect rights under Freedom of Information Act...................................................... 1033 10.84 Review of decisions of Registrar............................................................................................. 1033 10.85 Statement to accompany notices of Registrar.........................................................................1033 10.86 Evidence.................................................................................................................................. 1034 10.87 Notification by Commission of references etc......................................................................... 1034 10.88 Exclusion of documents etc from register of Commission investigations............................... 1034 10.89 Disclosure of confidential information...................................................................................... 1035 10.90 Fees......................................................................................................................................... 1036 10.91 Application of Part XID and section 155 to investigations under Part.................................... 1037 10.92 Constitution of Tribunal for inquiries under Part etc [Repealed]............................................. 1037 10.93 Participation in inquiries by Tribunal under Part etc [Repealed]............................................. 1037 Part XI – Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a law of the Commonwealth Division 1 – Preliminary 130 Definitions................................................................................................................................ 1039 130A Expressions defined in Schedule 2......................................................................................... 1040 Division 2 – Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a law of the Commonwealth Subdivision A – Application of the Australian Consumer Law 131 Application of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to corporations etc...........................1040 131A Division does not apply to financial services...........................................................................1041 131B Division does not apply to interim bans imposed by State or Territory Ministers................... 1044 131C Saving of other laws and remedies......................................................................................... 1044 Subdivision B – Effect of other Commonwealth laws on the Australian Consumer Law 131D Effect of Part VIB on Chapter 5 of the Australian Consumer Law..........................................1045 131E Application of the Legislation Act 2003....................................................................................1046 131F Section 4AB of the Crimes Act does not apply....................................................................... 1046

20

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

131G

Application of the Criminal Code............................................................................................. 1046

Division 3 – Conferences for proposed bans and recall notices Subdivision A – Conference requirements before a ban or compulsory recall 132 Commonwealth Minister must issue a proposed ban notice...................................................1048 132A Commonwealth Minister must issue a proposed recall notice................................................ 1048 132B Commonwealth Minister to be notified if no person wishes a conference to be held............ 1049 132C Notification of conference........................................................................................................ 1050 132D Recommendation after conclusion of conference................................................................... 1050

Subdivision C – Conduct of conferences 132H Conduct of conferences........................................................................................................... 1053 Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 132J Interim ban and recall notice without delay in case of danger to the public...........................1054 132K Copy of notices under this Division to be given to suppliers.................................................. 1055 Division 4 – Enforcement Subdivision A – Inspectors 133 Appointment of inspectors....................................................................................................... 1055 133A Identity cards............................................................................................................................1056 Subdivision B – Premises to which the public is given access 133B Power to enter premises to which the public has access—consumer goods.........................1056 133C Power to enter premises to which the public has access—product related services.............1057 Subdivision C – Disclosure notices relating to the safety of goods or services 133D Power to obtain information etc............................................................................................... 1057 133E Self-incrimination......................................................................................................................1059 133F Compliance with disclosure notices.........................................................................................1059 133G False or misleading information etc.........................................................................................1059 Subdivision D – Court orders relating to the destruction etc of goods 133H Court orders relating to consumer goods that do not comply with a safety standard etc...... 1060 133J Recovery of reasonable costs of seizing, and destroying or disposing of, consumer goods 1060 Division 5 – Infringement notices 134 Purpose and effect of this Division.......................................................................................... 1061 134A Issuing an infringement notice................................................................................................. 1062 134B Matters to be included in an infringement notice.................................................................... 1063 134C Amount of penalty.................................................................................................................... 1064 134D Effect of compliance with an infringement notice.................................................................... 1066 134E Effect of failure to comply with an infringement notice............................................................1066 134F Infringement notice compliance period for infringement notice...............................................1067 134G Withdrawal of an infringement notice...................................................................................... 1067 Division 6 – Search, seizure and entry Subdivision A – Powers of inspectors 135 Inspector may enter premises................................................................................................. 1068 135A Search-related powers of inspectors....................................................................................... 1069 135B Inspector may ask questions and seek production of documents.......................................... 1070 135C Failure to answer questions or produce documents............................................................... 1070 135D Persons assisting inspectors................................................................................................... 1071

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

21

CCA

Subdivision B – Conference requirements after an interim ban is imposed 132E Opportunity for a conference after an interim ban has been imposed by the Commonwealth Minister.....................................................................................................................................1051 132F Notification of conference........................................................................................................ 1052 132G Recommendation after conclusion of conference................................................................... 1052

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

135E 135F 135G

Use of force in executing a search warrant.............................................................................1071 Announcement before entry under warrant............................................................................. 1071 Inspector must be in possession of search warrant................................................................1072

Subdivision B – Obligations of inspectors 135H Consent.................................................................................................................................... 1072 135J Details of search warrant etc must be given to the occupier of the premises........................1072 Subdivision C – Occupier’s etc rights and responsibilities 135K Occupier etc entitled to observe execution of search warrant................................................ 1073 135L Occupier etc to provide inspector etc with facilities and assistance....................................... 1073 135M Receipts for seized consumer goods and equipment............................................................. 1073 135N Return of seized consumer goods and equipment..................................................................1074 135P Judge may permit consumer goods or equipment to be retained.......................................... 1074 Subdivision D – Provisions relating to seizure 135Q Recovery of reasonable costs of seizing consumer goods or equipment.............................. 1075 135R Destruction or disposal of seized consumer goods or equipment.......................................... 1075 Subdivision E – Embargo notices 135S Embargo notices...................................................................................................................... 1076 135T Embargo period for embargo notices...................................................................................... 1077 135U Multiple embargo notices for the same consumer goods or product related services........... 1077 135V Power of inspectors to secure consumer goods..................................................................... 1077 135W Power of inspectors to secure equipment used to supply product related services...............1077 135X Consent to supply etc embargoed consumer goods etc.........................................................1078 135Y Compliance with embargo notices...........................................................................................1078 Subdivision F – Issue of search warrants 135Z Issue of search warrants......................................................................................................... 1079 136 Search warrants by telephone, fax etc.................................................................................... 1079 136A Offence relating to warrants by telephone, fax etc..................................................................1081 Subdivision G – Miscellaneous 136B Powers of judges..................................................................................................................... 1081 Division 7 – Remedies 137 Limit on occupational liability................................................................................................... 1081 137A Contributory acts or omissions to reduce compensation in defective goods actions............. 1082 137B Reduction of the amount of loss or damage if the claimant fails to take reasonable care.... 1083 137C Limits on recovery of amounts for death or personal injury....................................................1084 137D Compensation orders etc arising out of unfair contract terms................................................ 1084 137E Limits on compensation orders etc for death or personal injury............................................. 1085 137F Court may make orders for the purpose of preserving money or other property held by a person...................................................................................................................................... 1085 137G Compliance with orders made under section 137F.................................................................1088 137H Finding in proceedings to be evidence....................................................................................1088 Division 8 – Jurisdictional matters 138 Conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Court............................................................................1090 138A Conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court................................................................ 1094 138B Conferring jurisdiction on State and Territory Courts.............................................................. 1094 138C Transfer of matters by the Federal Court................................................................................ 1095 138D Transfer of matters by a State or Territory court..................................................................... 1095 138E Transfer of proceedings to Family Court................................................................................. 1096 Division 9 – Miscellaneous 139 Intervention by the Commission.............................................................................................. 1097 139A Terms excluding consumer guarantees from supplies of recreational services......................1097

22

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

139E 139F 139G

Conduct of directors, employees or agents of bodies corporate............................................ 1099 Conduct of employees or agents of persons other than bodies corporate............................. 1100 Enforcement and recovery of certain fines.............................................................................. 1100 Application of section 229 of the Australian Consumer Law to a person other than a body corporate.................................................................................................................................. 1101 Cessation of enforcement orders etc.......................................................................................1101 Compensation for acquisition of property................................................................................ 1102 Regulations...............................................................................................................................1102

Part XIAA – Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a law of a State or Territory 140 Definitions.................................................................................................................................1105 140A Object of this Part.................................................................................................................... 1106 140B The applied Australian Consumer Law.................................................................................... 1106 140C Federal Court may exercise jurisdiction under application laws of Territories........................ 1106 140D Exercise of jurisdiction under cross-vesting provisions........................................................... 1106 140E Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on Commonwealth entities..................1106 140F How duty is imposed................................................................................................................1107 140G When an application law imposes a duty................................................................................ 1107 140H Application laws may operate concurrently with this Act.........................................................1108 140J No doubling-up of liabilities...................................................................................................... 1108 140K References in instruments to the Australian Consumer Law.................................................. 1108 Part XIA – The Competition Code 150A Definitions.................................................................................................................................1109 150B Objects of this Part...................................................................................................................1110 150C The Competition Code..............................................................................................................1111 150D Federal Court may exercise jurisdiction under application laws of Territories......................... 1111 150E Exercise of jurisdiction under cross-vesting provisions............................................................1111 150F Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on Commonwealth entities.................. 1112 150FA How duty is imposed................................................................................................................ 1112 150FB When an application law imposes a duty................................................................................ 1113 150G Application laws may operate concurrently with this Act......................................................... 1113 150H No doubling-up of liabilities...................................................................................................... 1113 150I References in instruments to the Competition Code............................................................... 1113 150J Authorisations etc under this Act may relate also to Competition Code................................. 1113 150K Gazettal of jurisdictions that excessively modify the Code......................................................1113 151 Particulars of agreements continued [Repealed]..................................................................... 1114 Part XIB – The Telecommunications Industry: Anti-competitive conduct and record-keeping rules Division 1 – Introduction 151AA Simplified outline...................................................................................................................... 1116 151AB Definitions................................................................................................................................. 1116 151AC Extension to external Territories............................................................................................... 1119 151AD Continuity of partnerships........................................................................................................ 1120 151AE Additional operation of Part......................................................................................................1120 151AF Telecommunications market.....................................................................................................1120 151AG When a body corporate is related to a partnership................................................................. 1121 151AH Degree of power in a telecommunications market.................................................................. 1121 151AI Interpretation of Part IV or VII not affected by this Part.......................................................... 1123 Division 2 – Anti-competitive conduct 151AJ Anti-competitive conduct.......................................................................................................... 1123 151AK The competition rule.................................................................................................................1128

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

23

CCA

139B 139C 139D 139DA

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Division 3 – Competition notices and exemption orders Subdivision A – Competition notices 151AKA Part A competition notices........................................................................................................1130 151AL Part B competition notices....................................................................................................... 1131 151AM Competition notice to be given to carrier or carriage service provider................................... 1132 151AN Evidentiary effect of competition notice................................................................................... 1132 151AO Duration of Part A competition notice...................................................................................... 1133 151AOA Variation of competition notice................................................................................................. 1133 151AOB Revocation of competition notice............................................................................................. 1133 151AP Guidelines.................................................................................................................................1133 151AQ Commission to act expeditiously..............................................................................................1134 151AQA Stay of proceedings relating to competition notices................................................................ 1134 151AQB Advisory notices....................................................................................................................... 1135 151AR Register of competition notices................................................................................................1136 Subdivision B – Exemption orders 151AS Exemption orders..................................................................................................................... 1137 151AT Form of application...................................................................................................................1137 151AU Further information................................................................................................................... 1138 151AV Withdrawal of application......................................................................................................... 1138 151AW Commission must publicise receipt of applications................................................................. 1138 151AX Commission may refuse to consider application if it relates to the same conduct as an authorisation application...........................................................................................................1138 151AY Commission may refuse to consider application if it relates to the same conduct as a Part VII notification...........................................................................................................................1139 151AZ Commission may convene conference to discuss application................................................ 1139 151BA Commission must grant or reject application...........................................................................1139 151BB Commission to give opportunity for submissions.................................................................... 1140 151BC Criteria for making exemption order........................................................................................ 1140 151BD Notification of decision............................................................................................................. 1141 151BE Duration of exemption order may be limited............................................................................1141 151BF Conditions of exemption order................................................................................................. 1141 151BG Revocation of exemption order................................................................................................ 1141 151BH Register of exemption orders...................................................................................................1142 151BI False or misleading information supplied in connection with application for an exemption order [Repealed].......................................................................................................................1143 Subdivision C – Miscellaneous 151BJ Conduct includes proposed conduct........................................................................................1143 Division 4 – Tariff filing 151BK Tariff filing directions.................................................................................................................1143 151BL Specification of goods and services........................................................................................ 1145 151BM Notification of reasons..............................................................................................................1146 151BN Duration of direction may be limited........................................................................................ 1146 151BO Revocation of direction.............................................................................................................1146 151BP Variation of direction.................................................................................................................1146 151BQ Public access to tariff information............................................................................................ 1147 151BR Register of tariff filing directions...............................................................................................1147 151BS False or misleading tariff information [Repealed].................................................................... 1148 151BT Meaning of terms and conditions............................................................................................. 1148 Division 5 – Tariff filing by Telstra 151BTA Tariff filing by Telstra.................................................................................................................1148 Division 6 – Record-keeping rules and disclosure directions 151BU Commission may make record-keeping rules..........................................................................1150 24

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Division 7 – Enforcement of the competition rule, tariff filing directions, record-keeping rules and disclosure directions 151BW Person involved in a contravention of the competition rule, a tariff filing direction, a record-keeping rule or a disclosure direction...........................................................................1165 151BX Pecuniary penalties for breach of the competition rule, a tariff filing direction, a record-keeping rule or a disclosure direction...........................................................................1166 151BY Civil action for recovery of pecuniary penalties....................................................................... 1167 151BZ Criminal proceedings not to be brought for contraventions of the competition rule, tariff filing directions, record-keeping rules or disclosure directions.........................................................1167 151CA Injunctions................................................................................................................................ 1168 151CB Orders to disclose information or publish an advertisement—breach of the competition rule1169 151CC Actions for damages—breach of the competition rule.............................................................1170 151CD Finding of fact in proceedings to be evidence.........................................................................1170 151CE Other orders—compensation for breach of the competition rule............................................ 1170 151CF Conduct by directors, employees or agents............................................................................ 1172 Division 8 – Disclosure of documents by Commission 151CG Disclosure of documents by Commission................................................................................1172 Division 9 – Treatment of partnerships 151CH Treatment of partnerships........................................................................................................ 1173 Division 10 – Review of decisions 151CI Review by Tribunal...................................................................................................................1173 151CJ Functions and powers of Tribunal............................................................................................1174 151CK Provisions that do not apply in relation to a Tribunal review...................................................1174 Division 11 – Reviews of competitive safeguards within the telecommunications industry 151CL Reviews of competitive safeguards within the telecommunications industry.......................... 1175 Division 12 – Monitoring of telecommunications charges paid by consumers 151CM Monitoring of telecommunications charges paid by consumers..............................................1175 Division 12A 151CMA 151CMB 151CMC

– Reports about competition in the telecommunications industry Public reports about competition in the telecommunications industry.....................................1176 Confidential reports about competition in the telecommunications industry........................... 1177 Examples of matters that may be specified in a determination under section 151CMA or 151CMB....................................................................................................................................1178

Division 15 – Voluntary undertakings given by Telstra 151CQ Voluntary undertakings given by Telstra.................................................................................. 1179 Division 16 – NBN corporations 151DA Authorised conduct—subsection 51(1).................................................................................... 1179

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

25

CCA

151BUAA Minister may give directions to Commission........................................................................... 1151 151BUAAA Minister to give direction to Commission about Telstra’s wholesale operations and retail operations [Repealed].............................................................................................................. 1152 151BUAB Request for disclosure............................................................................................................. 1152 151BUA Commission gives access to reports....................................................................................... 1153 151BUB Carrier or carriage service provider gives access to reports...................................................1155 151BUC Carrier or carriage service provider gives access to periodic reports..................................... 1157 151BUD Exemption of reports from access requirements..................................................................... 1159 151BUDA Commission gives access to Ministerially-directed reports..................................................... 1160 151BUDB Carrier or carriage service provider gives access to Ministerially-directed reports.................1161 151BUDC Carrier or carriage service provider gives access to Ministerially-directed periodic reports... 1163 151BUE Access via the internet.............................................................................................................1164 151BUF Self-incrimination...................................................................................................................... 1165 151BV Incorrect records...................................................................................................................... 1165

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

151DB

Listed points of interconnection............................................................................................... 1182

Part XIC – Telecommunications access regime Division 1 – Introduction 152AA Simplified outline...................................................................................................................... 1186 152AB Object of this Part.................................................................................................................... 1187 152AC Definitions.................................................................................................................................1189 152AD This Part binds the Crown....................................................................................................... 1192 152AE Extension to external Territories...............................................................................................1192 152AF Access...................................................................................................................................... 1193 152AG Access seeker.......................................................................................................................... 1193 152AGA Designated superfast telecommunications network.................................................................1193 152AH Reasonableness—terms and conditions..................................................................................1195 152AI When public inquiry commences............................................................................................. 1196 152AJ Interpretation of Part IIIA not affected by this Part.................................................................. 1197 152AK Operation of Parts IV and VII not affected by this Part........................................................... 1197 Division 2 – Declared services 152AL Declared services.....................................................................................................................1197 152ALA Duration of declaration.............................................................................................................1202 152AM Inquiries about proposals to declare services......................................................................... 1205 152AN Combined inquiries about proposals to declare services........................................................1206 152AO Variation or revocation of declaration...................................................................................... 1206 152AP Inquiries about revocation of declared services [Repealed]....................................................1207 152AQ Register of declared services.................................................................................................. 1207 152AQC Compensation for acquisition of property................................................................................ 1208 Division 3 – Standard access obligations Subdivision A – Category A standard access obligations 152AR Category A standard access obligations..................................................................................1208 152ARA Layer 2 bitstream services to be supplied on a non-discriminatory basis.............................. 1212 152ARB Layer 2 bitstream services—carriers and carriage service providers to carry on related activities on a non-discriminatory basis................................................................................... 1212 152AS Ordinary class exemptions from standard access obligations [Repealed]..............................1213 152ASA Anticipatory class exemptions from category A standard access obligations......................... 1213 152AT Ordinary individual exemptions from standard access obligations [Repealed].......................1215 152ATA Anticipatory individual exemptions from category A standard access obligations.................. 1216 152AU Individual exemptions—request for further information........................................................... 1219 152AXA Statement of reasons for decision—specification of documents.............................................1220 Subdivision B – Category B standard access obligations 152AXB Category B standard access obligations................................................................................. 1220 152AXC NBN corporation to supply declared services on a non-discriminatory basis.........................1222 152AXD NBN corporation to carry on related activities on a non-discriminatory basis........................ 1222 Subdivision C – Compliance with standard access obligations 152AY Compliance with standard access obligations.........................................................................1223 152AYA Ancillary obligations—confidential information.........................................................................1224 152AZ Carrier licence condition.......................................................................................................... 1224 152BA Service provider rule................................................................................................................ 1224 152BB Judicial enforcement of standard access obligations.............................................................. 1225 152BBAA Judicial enforcement of conditions and limitations of exemption determinations and orders 1226 152BBA Commission may give directions in relation to negotiations................................................... 1226 152BBB Enforcement of directions........................................................................................................ 1228 152BBC Commission’s role in negotiations........................................................................................... 1228

26

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

152BBD

Reaching agreement on terms and conditions of access....................................................... 1229

Division 4 – Access determinations

Subdivision B – Public inquiries about proposals to make access determinations 152BCH Access determination to be made after public inquiry............................................................ 1239 152BCI When public inquiry must be held........................................................................................... 1240 152BCJ Combined inquiries about proposals to make access determinations.................................... 1241 152BCK Time limit for making an access determination....................................................................... 1242 Subdivision C – Variation or revocation of access determinations 152BCN Variation or revocation of access determinations....................................................................1242 Subdivision D – Compliance with access determinations 152BCO Carrier licence condition.......................................................................................................... 1243 152BCP Service provider rule................................................................................................................ 1244 Subdivision E – Private enforcement of access determinations 152BCQ Private enforcement of access determinations........................................................................1244 152BCR Consent injunctions..................................................................................................................1245 152BCS Interim injunctions.................................................................................................................... 1245 152BCT Factors relevant to granting a restraining injunction............................................................... 1245 152BCU Factors relevant to granting a mandatory injunction............................................................... 1245 152BCV Discharge or variation of injunction or other order.................................................................. 1245 Subdivision F – Register of Access Determinations 152BCW Register of Access Determinations..........................................................................................1245 Division 4A – Binding rules of conduct Subdivision A – Commission may make binding rules of conduct 152BD Binding rules of conduct.......................................................................................................... 1246 152BDAA Matters that the Commission must take into account............................................................. 1247 152BDA Restrictions on binding rules of conduct..................................................................................1248 152BDB Access agreements prevail over inconsistent binding rules of conduct..................................1251 152BDC Duration of binding rules of conduct........................................................................................1251 152BDCA Final migration plan prevails over inconsistent binding rules of conduct................................1251 152BDD Commission must give copy of binding rules of conduct to carrier etc.................................. 1251 152BDE Access determinations that are inconsistent with binding rules of conduct............................1252 152BDEA Stay of binding rules of conduct.............................................................................................. 1252 Subdivision B – Compliance with binding rules of conduct 152BDF Carrier licence condition.......................................................................................................... 1252 152BDG Service provider rule................................................................................................................ 1252 Subdivision C – Private enforcement of binding rules of conduct 152BDH Private enforcement of binding rules of conduct..................................................................... 1252 152BDI Consent injunctions..................................................................................................................1253

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

27

CCA

Subdivision A – Commission may make access determinations 152BC Access determinations............................................................................................................. 1229 152BCA Matters that the Commission must take into account............................................................. 1231 152BCB Restrictions on access determinations.................................................................................... 1231 152BCC Access agreements prevail over inconsistent access determinations.................................... 1234 152BCCA Final migration plan prevails over inconsistent access determinations.................................. 1234 152BCD Fixed principles provisions.......................................................................................................1235 152BCE Access determinations may be set out in the same document.............................................. 1236 152BCF Duration of access determination............................................................................................ 1236 152BCG Interim access determinations................................................................................................. 1238 152BCGA Stay of access determinations.................................................................................................1239

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

152BDJ 152BDK 152BDL 152BDM

Interim injunctions.................................................................................................................... 1253 Factors relevant to granting a restraining injunction............................................................... 1253 Factors relevant to granting a mandatory injunction............................................................... 1253 Discharge or variation of injunction or other order.................................................................. 1254

Subdivision D – Register of Binding Rules of Conduct 152BDN Register of Binding Rules of Conduct..................................................................................... 1254 Division 4B 152BE 152BEA 152BEB 152BEBA 152BEBB 152BEBC 152BEBD 152BEBE

152BEBF 152BEBG 152BEC 152BED

– Access agreements Access agreements................................................................................................................. 1254 Quarterly reports about access agreements........................................................................... 1256 Commission may request copy of access agreement or variation agreement....................... 1257 NBN corporation to give the Commission a statement about the differences between an access agreement and a standard form of access agreement...............................................1257 NBN corporation to give the Commission a statement about the differences between an access agreement and a special access undertaking.............................................................1258 NBN corporation to give the Commission a statement about the differences between an access agreement and an access determination.................................................................... 1259 Register of NBN Access Agreement Statements.................................................................... 1260 Layer 2 bitstream services—carrier or carriage service provider to give the Commission a statement about the differences between an access agreement and a special access undertaking.............................................................................................................................. 1260 Layer 2 bitstream services—carrier or carriage service provider to give the Commission a statement about the differences between an access agreement and an access determination1261 Register of Layer 2 Bitstream Access Agreement Statements............................................... 1262 Carrier licence condition.......................................................................................................... 1263 Service provider rule................................................................................................................ 1263

Division 5 – Access undertakings Subdivision A – Ordinary access undertakings [Repealed] Subdivision B – Special access undertakings 152CBA What is a special access undertaking?................................................................................... 1264 152CBAA Fixed principles terms and conditions..................................................................................... 1267 152CBB Further information about undertaking.....................................................................................1269 152CBC Commission to accept or reject access undertaking...............................................................1270 152CBCA Serial undertakings.................................................................................................................. 1271 152CBD Criteria for accepting access undertaking............................................................................... 1271 152CBDA Variation of special access undertaking.................................................................................. 1273 152CBE Extension of access undertaking............................................................................................. 1274 152CBF Duration of access undertaking............................................................................................... 1274 152CBG Variation of access undertakings............................................................................................. 1275 152CBH Further information about variation of access undertaking..................................................... 1276 152CBI Voluntary withdrawal of undertaking........................................................................................ 1277 152CBIA Special access undertakings prevail over inconsistent access determinations...................... 1277 152CBIB Special access undertakings prevail over inconsistent binding rules of conduct................... 1277 152CBIC Access agreements prevail over special access undertakings............................................... 1277 152CBJ Proposed service..................................................................................................................... 1277 Subdivision C – General provisions 152CC Register of access undertakings..............................................................................................1278 152CD Enforcement of access undertakings.......................................................................................1278 152CDA Deferral of consideration of an access undertaking etc.......................................................... 1279 Division 6 – Ministerial pricing determinations 152CH Ministerial pricing determinations.............................................................................................1280 152CI Undertakings, access determinations and binding rules of conduct that are inconsistent with

28

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Ministerial pricing determinations.............................................................................................1281 Register of Ministerial pricing determinations..........................................................................1281

152CJ Division 6A 152CJA 152CJB 152CJC 152CJD 152CJE 152CJF 152CJG

– Supply of services by NBN corporations Supply of services by NBN corporations................................................................................. 1282 Mandatory NBN services......................................................................................................... 1282 Carrier licence condition.......................................................................................................... 1283 Service provider rule................................................................................................................ 1284 Judicial enforcement of obligations..........................................................................................1284 Standard form of access agreement....................................................................................... 1284 When NBN corporation is not capable of supplying a carriage service..................................1284

Division 6B – Explanatory material relating to anti-discrimination provisions 152CJH Explanatory material relating to anti-discrimination provisions................................................1285

Division 10 – Hindering the fulfilment of a standard access obligation etc 152EF Prohibition on hindering the fulfilment of a standard access obligation etc............................1286 152EG Enforcement of prohibition on hindering the fulfilment of a standard access obligation etc...1287 152EH Consent injunctions..................................................................................................................1287 152EI Interim injunctions.................................................................................................................... 1287 152EJ Factors relevant to granting a restraining injunction............................................................... 1287 152EK Factors relevant to granting a mandatory injunction............................................................... 1288 152EL Discharge or variation of injunction or other order.................................................................. 1288 Division 10A 152ELA 152ELB 152ELC

– Procedural Rules Procedural Rules..................................................................................................................... 1288 Public consultation................................................................................................................... 1289 Plan for the development of Procedural Rules........................................................................1289

Division 11 – Miscellaneous 152ELD Compensation for acquisition of property................................................................................ 1290 152EM Continuity of partnerships........................................................................................................ 1290 152EN Treatment of partnerships........................................................................................................1290 152EO Conduct by directors, servants or agents................................................................................1290 152EOA Review of operation of this Part etc........................................................................................ 1291 152EP Regulations about fees for inspection etc of registers............................................................ 1292 152EQ Assistance to independent telecommunications adjudicator................................................... 1292 152ER Voluntary undertakings given by Telstra.................................................................................. 1292 153 Extension of section 121 [Repealed]....................................................................................... 1293 Part XID – Search and seizure Division 1 – Preliminary 154 Simplified outline...................................................................................................................... 1295 154A Definitions................................................................................................................................ 1296 Division 2 – Appointment of inspectors and identity cards 154B Appointment of inspectors....................................................................................................... 1297 154C Identity cards............................................................................................................................1297 Division 3 – Entry to premises with consent 154D Entry with consent................................................................................................................... 1298 154E Powers in relation to premises................................................................................................ 1298 154F Operation of electronic equipment at premises.......................................................................1299 Division 4 – Entry to premises under a search warrant Subdivision A – Powers available under a search warrant 154G The things that are authorised by a search warrant............................................................... 1300

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

29

CCA

Division 7 – Relationship between this Part and Part IIIA 152CK Relationship between this Part and Part IIIA...........................................................................1285

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

154GA 154H 154J

Removing things for examination or processing..................................................................... 1301 Operation of electronic equipment at premises.......................................................................1301 Securing electronic equipment for use by experts.................................................................. 1302

Subdivision B – Availability of assistance and use of force in executing a search warrant 154K Authorisation of officers assisting............................................................................................ 1303 154L Availability of assistance and use of force in executing a search warrant............................. 1303 Subdivision C – Obligations of executing officer and officers assisting 154M Announcement before entry.................................................................................................... 1303 154N Details of warrant to be given to occupier...............................................................................1304 Subdivision D – Occupier’s rights and responsibilities 154P Occupier entitled to observe search being conducted............................................................ 1304 154Q Occupier to provide reasonable facilities and assistance....................................................... 1304 154R Answering of questions or producing evidential material........................................................ 1304 154RA Person with computer knowledge to assist access etc...........................................................1305 Subdivision E – General provisions relating to seizure 154S Copies of seized things to be provided................................................................................... 1305 154T Receipts for things seized or moved under warrant................................................................1306 154U Return of seized things............................................................................................................ 1306 154V Magistrate may permit a thing to be retained..........................................................................1306 154W Disposal of things if there is no owner or owner cannot be located.......................................1307 Subdivision F – Search warrants 154X Issue of search warrants......................................................................................................... 1307 154Y Search warrants by telephone, fax etc.................................................................................... 1308 154Z Offences relating to warrants...................................................................................................1309 Subdivision G – Powers of magistrates 154ZA Powers conferred on magistrates............................................................................................ 1309 Division 5 – General provisions relating to electronic equipment 154ZB Operation of electronic equipment at premises.......................................................................1310 154ZC Compensation for damage to electronic equipment................................................................1310 Part XII – Miscellaneous 155 Power to obtain information, documents and evidence...........................................................1311 155AAA Protection of certain information.............................................................................................. 1327 155AA Protection of Part VB information............................................................................................ 1333 155AB Protection of Part XIB or XIC information [Repealed]............................................................. 1334 155A Power to obtain information and documents in New Zealand relating to trans-Tasman markets.................................................................................................................................... 1334 155B Australian Competition and Consumer Commission may receive information and documents on behalf of New Zealand Commerce Commission................................................................1335 156 Inspection of documents by Commission................................................................................ 1336 157 Disclosure of documents by Commission................................................................................1336 157AA Disclosure of documents by Tribunal in relation to merger authorisations............................. 1340 157A Disclosure of information by Commission............................................................................... 1341 157B Disclosure of protected cartel information to a court or tribunal............................................. 1341 157C Disclosure of protected cartel information to a party to court proceedings etc...................... 1343 157D General powers of a court....................................................................................................... 1345 158 Protection of members of Tribunal, counsel and witnesses....................................................1345 159 Incriminating answers.............................................................................................................. 1346 160 Failure of witness to attend......................................................................................................1346 161 Refusal to be sworn or to answer questions........................................................................... 1347 162 Contempt..................................................................................................................................1347

30

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

162A 163 163A 164 165 166 167 170 171 171A 171B 172 173

Intimidation etc......................................................................................................................... 1348 Prosecutions............................................................................................................................ 1348 Declarations and orders...........................................................................................................1350 Proceedings by Commission to be in its official name [Repealed]......................................... 1356 Inspection of, furnishing of copies of, and evidence of, documents....................................... 1356 Certificates as to furnishing of particulars to Commission...................................................... 1358 Judicial notice.......................................................................................................................... 1358 Legal and financial assistance.................................................................................................1359 Annual report by Commission..................................................................................................1360 Charges by the Commission....................................................................................................1361 Division 3 of Part IIIA does not confer judicial power on the Commission............................. 1361 Regulations.............................................................................................................................. 1362 Authorisation for the purposes of subsection 51(1).................................................................1363

Division 1 – Cartel conduct 174 Definitions................................................................................................................................ 1365 175 Giving effect after the commencement time to a cartel provision in existence before that time.......................................................................................................................................... 1365 176 Proceedings relating to price-fixing contraventions taking place before the commencement time.......................................................................................................................................... 1365 177 Authorisations in force before the commencement time......................................................... 1365 178 Notifications in force before the commencement time............................................................ 1366 Division 2 – Application of amendments made by the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2011 179 Amendments of section 50...................................................................................................... 1367

SCHEDULE 1 [NOT REPRODUCED] – THE SCHEDULE VERSION OF PART IV SCHEDULE 2 – THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Application of this Schedule.....................................................................................................1383 Definitions................................................................................................................................ 1384 Meaning of consumer.............................................................................................................. 1396 Misleading representations with respect to future matters......................................................1401 When donations are treated as supplies or acquisitions.........................................................1408 Related bodies corporate.........................................................................................................1408 Meaning of manufacturer......................................................................................................... 1409 Goods affixed to land or premises...........................................................................................1410 Meaning of safety defect in relation to goods..........................................................................1410 Asserting a right to payment....................................................................................................1413 References to acquisition, supply and re-supply.....................................................................1414 Application of Schedule in relation to leases and licences of land and buildings.................. 1415 Loss or damage to include injury.............................................................................................1415 Meaning of continuing credit contract...................................................................................... 1415 Contraventions of this Schedule.............................................................................................. 1416 Severability...............................................................................................................................1417 References to provisions in this Schedule.............................................................................. 1417

CHAPTER 2 – GENERAL PROTECTIONS Part 2-1 – Misleading or deceptive conduct 18 19

Misleading or deceptive conduct............................................................................................. 1418 Application of this Part to information providers......................................................................1532

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

31

CCA

Part XIII – Application and transitional provisions relating to the competition provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Part 2-2 – Unconscionable conduct 20 21 22 22A

Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law..........................................1537 Unconscionable conduct in connection with goods or services.............................................. 1547 Matters the court may have regard to for the purposes of section 21....................................1563 Presumptions relating to whether representations are misleading......................................... 1567

Part 2-3 – Unfair contract terms 23 24 25 26 27 28

Unfair terms of consumer contracts and small business contracts.........................................1568 Meaning of unfair..................................................................................................................... 1573 Examples of unfair terms......................................................................................................... 1576 Terms that define main subject matter of consumer contracts or small business contracts etc. are unaffected................................................................................................................... 1577 Standard form contracts.......................................................................................................... 1578 Contracts to which this Part does not apply............................................................................1579

CHAPTER 3 – SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS Part 3-1 – Unfair practices Division 1 – False or misleading representations etc 29 False or misleading representations about goods or services................................................1580 30 False or misleading representations about sale etc of land....................................................1595 31 Misleading conduct relating to employment............................................................................ 1597 32 Offering rebates, gifts, prizes etc.............................................................................................1598 33 Misleading conduct as to the nature etc of goods.................................................................. 1600 34 Misleading conduct as to the nature etc of services............................................................... 1603 35 Bait advertising........................................................................................................................ 1605 36 Wrongly accepting payment.....................................................................................................1607 37 Misleading representations about certain business activities..................................................1610 38 Application of provisions of this Division to information providers.......................................... 1612 Division 2 – Unsolicited supplies 39 Unsolicited cards etc................................................................................................................1613 40 Assertion of right to payment for unsolicited goods or services............................................. 1614 41 Liability etc of recipient for unsolicited goods..........................................................................1616 42 Liability of recipient for unsolicited services............................................................................ 1618 43 Assertion of right to payment for unauthorised entries or advertisements............................. 1618 Division 3 – Pyramid schemes 44 Participation in pyramid schemes............................................................................................ 1620 45 Meaning of pyramid scheme....................................................................................................1622 46 Marketing schemes as pyramid schemes............................................................................... 1624 Division 4 – Pricing 47 Multiple pricing......................................................................................................................... 1625 48 Single price to be specified in certain circumstances............................................................. 1626 Division 5 – Other unfair practices 49 Referral selling......................................................................................................................... 1629 50 Harassment and coercion........................................................................................................ 1630

Part 3-2 – Consumer transactions Division 1 – Consumer guarantees Subdivision A – Guarantees relating to the supply of goods 51 Guarantee as to title................................................................................................................ 1635 52 Guarantee as to undisturbed possession................................................................................ 1636 53 Guarantee as to undisclosed securities etc.............................................................................1637 54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality......................................................................................... 1638 55 Guarantee as to fitness for any disclosed purpose etc...........................................................1643 56 Guarantee relating to the supply of goods by description.......................................................1647 32

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

57 58 59

Guarantees relating to the supply of goods by sample or demonstration model................... 1648 Guarantee as to repairs and spare parts................................................................................ 1649 Guarantee as to express warranties........................................................................................1650

Subdivision B – Guarantees relating to the supply of services 60 Guarantee as to due care and skill......................................................................................... 1652 61 Guarantees as to fitness for a particular purpose etc............................................................. 1654 62 Guarantee as to reasonable time for supply........................................................................... 1655 63 Services to which this Subdivision does not apply..................................................................1655

Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 65 Application of this Division to supplies of gas, electricity and telecommunications................1658 66 Display notices......................................................................................................................... 1658 67 Conflict of laws.........................................................................................................................1659 68 Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods................................................ 1660 Division 2 – Unsolicited consumer agreements Subdivision A – Introduction 69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement.......................................................................... 1662 70 Presumption that agreements are unsolicited consumer agreements.................................... 1664 71 Meaning of dealer.................................................................................................................... 1665 72 Meaning of negotiation............................................................................................................ 1665 Subdivision B – Negotiating unsolicited consumer agreements 73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement.....................................1665 74 Disclosing purpose and identity............................................................................................... 1665 75 Ceasing to negotiate on request..............................................................................................1667 76 Informing person of termination period etc..............................................................................1668 77 Liability of suppliers for contraventions by dealers..................................................................1669 Subdivision C – Requirements for unsolicited consumer agreements etc 78 Requirement to give document to the consumer.................................................................... 1669 79 Requirements for all unsolicited consumer agreements etc................................................... 1670 80 Additional requirements for unsolicited consumer agreements not negotiated by telephone 1671 ................................................................................................................................................. 81 Requirements for amendments of unsolicited consumer agreements.................................... 1671 Subdivision D – Terminating unsolicited consumer agreements 82 Terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement during the termination period.................... 1671 83 Effect of termination................................................................................................................. 1673 84 Obligations of suppliers on termination................................................................................... 1673 85 Obligations and rights of consumers on termination............................................................... 1673 86 Prohibition on supplies etc for 10 business days.................................................................... 1674 87 Repayment of payments received after termination................................................................1676 88 Prohibition on recovering amounts after termination...............................................................1676 Subdivision E – Miscellaneous 89 Certain provisions of unsolicited consumer agreements void................................................. 1677 90 Waiver of rights........................................................................................................................ 1677 91 Application of this Division to persons to whom rights of consumers and suppliers are assigned etc............................................................................................................................. 1677 92 Application of this Division to supplies to third parties............................................................ 1678 93 Effect of contravening this Division..........................................................................................1678 94 Regulations may limit the application of this Division............................................................. 1678 95 Application of this Division to certain conduct covered by the Corporations Act....................1678

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

33

CCA

Subdivision C – Guarantees not to be excluded etc by contract 64 Guarantees not to be excluded etc by contract...................................................................... 1655 64A Limitation of liability for failures to comply with guarantees.................................................... 1656

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Division 3 – Lay-by agreements 96 Lay-by agreements must be in writing etc...............................................................................1678 97 Termination of lay-by agreements by consumers....................................................................1679 98 Termination of lay-by agreements by suppliers....................................................................... 1680 99 Effect of termination................................................................................................................. 1680 Division 4 – Miscellaneous 100 Supplier must provide proof of transaction etc........................................................................1681 101 Consumer may request an itemised bill.................................................................................. 1681 102 Prescribed requirements for warranties against defects......................................................... 1682 103 Repairers must comply with prescribed requirements............................................................ 1683

Part 3-3 – Safety of consumer goods and product related services Division 1 – Safety standards 104 Making safety standards for consumer goods and product related services..........................1685 105 Declaring safety standards for consumer goods and product related services...................... 1686 106 Supplying etc consumer goods that do not comply with safety standards............................. 1687 107 Supplying etc product related services that do not comply with safety standards................. 1690 108 Requirement to nominate a safety standard........................................................................... 1691 Division 2 – Bans on consumer goods and product related services Subdivision A – Interim bans 109 Interim bans on consumer goods or product related services that will or may cause injury to any person etc......................................................................................................................... 1691 110 Places in which interim bans apply......................................................................................... 1693 111 Ban period for interim bans..................................................................................................... 1693 112 Interaction of multiple interim bans..........................................................................................1694 113 Revocation of interim bans...................................................................................................... 1694 Subdivision B – Permanent bans 114 Permanent bans on consumer goods or product related services......................................... 1694 115 Places in which permanent bans apply................................................................................... 1695 116 When permanent bans come into force.................................................................................. 1695 117 Revocation of permanent bans................................................................................................1695 Subdivision C – Compliance with interim bans and permanent bans 118 Supplying etc consumer goods covered by a ban.................................................................. 1696 119 Supplying etc product related services covered by a ban...................................................... 1698 Subdivision D – Temporary exemption from mutual recognition principles 120 Temporary exemption under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997....................... 1698 121 Temporary exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992...............................................1699 Division 3 – Recall of consumer goods Subdivision A – Compulsory recall of consumer goods 122 Compulsory recall of consumer goods.................................................................................... 1699 123 Contents of a recall notice....................................................................................................... 1701 124 Obligations of a supplier in relation to a recall notice............................................................. 1702 125 Notification by persons who supply consumer goods outside Australia if there is compulsory recall.........................................................................................................................................1702 126 Interaction of multiple recall notices........................................................................................ 1703 127 Compliance with recall notices................................................................................................ 1703 Subdivision B – Voluntary recall of consumer goods 128 Notification requirements for a voluntary recall of consumer goods....................................... 1704 Division 4 – Safety warning notices 129 Safety warning notices about consumer goods and product related services........................1706

34

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

130

Announcement of the results of an investigation etc.............................................................. 1707

Division 5 – Consumer goods, or product related services, associated with death or serious injury or illness 131 Suppliers to report consumer goods associated with the death or serious injury or illness of any person............................................................................................................................... 1708 132 Suppliers to report product related services associated with the death or serious injury or illness of any person................................................................................................................ 1710 132A Confidentiality of notices given under this Division................................................................. 1711 Division 6 – Miscellaneous 133 Liability under a contract of insurance.....................................................................................1712 134 135 136 137

Making information standards for goods and services............................................................1713 Declaring information standards for goods and services........................................................ 1714 Supplying etc goods that do not comply with information standards......................................1714 Supplying etc services that do not comply with information standards.................................. 1716

Part 3-5 – Liability of manufacturers for goods with safety defects Division 1 – Actions against manufacturers for goods with safety defects 138 Liability for loss or damage suffered by an injured individual................................................. 1719 139 Liability for loss or damage suffered by a person other than an injured individual................ 1722 140 Liability for loss or damage suffered by a person if other goods are destroyed or damaged1723 141 Liability for loss or damage suffered by a person if land, buildings or fixtures are destroyed or damaged.............................................................................................................................. 1724 142 Defences to defective goods actions.......................................................................................1725 Division 2 – Defective goods actions 143 Time for commencing defective goods actions....................................................................... 1726 144 Liability joint and several..........................................................................................................1727 145 Survival of actions....................................................................................................................1727 146 No defective goods action where workers’ compensation law etc applies............................. 1728 147 Unidentified manufacturer........................................................................................................ 1728 148 Commonwealth liability for goods that are defective only because of compliance with Commonwealth mandatory standard....................................................................................... 1729 149 Representative actions by the regulator.................................................................................. 1730 Division 3 – Miscellaneous 150 Application of all or any provisions of this Part etc not to be excluded or modified...............1730

CHAPTER 4 – OFFENCES Part 4-1 – Offences relating to unfair practices Division 1 – False or misleading representations etc 151 False or misleading representations about goods or services................................................1731 152 False or misleading representations about sale etc of land....................................................1734 153 Misleading conduct relating to employment............................................................................ 1735 154 Offering rebates, gifts, prizes etc.............................................................................................1735 155 Misleading conduct as to the nature etc of goods.................................................................. 1736 156 Misleading conduct as to the nature etc of services............................................................... 1737 157 Bait advertising........................................................................................................................ 1738 158 Wrongly accepting payment.....................................................................................................1739 159 Misleading representations about certain business activities..................................................1741 160 Application of provisions of this Division to information providers.......................................... 1742 Division 2 – Unsolicited supplies 161 Unsolicited cards etc................................................................................................................1743 162 Assertion of right to payment for unsolicited goods or services............................................. 1744

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

35

CCA

Part 3-4 – Information standards

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

163

Assertion of right to payment for unauthorised entries or advertisements............................. 1745

Division 3 – Pyramid schemes 164 Participation in pyramid schemes............................................................................................ 1746 Division 4 – Pricing 165 Multiple pricing......................................................................................................................... 1747 166 Single price to be specified in certain circumstances............................................................. 1748 Division 5 – Other unfair practices 167 Referral selling......................................................................................................................... 1749 168 Harassment and coercion........................................................................................................ 1750

Part 4-2 – Offences relating to consumer transactions Division 1 – Consumer guarantees 169 Display notices......................................................................................................................... 1751 Division 2 – Unsolicited consumer agreements Subdivision A – Negotiating unsolicited consumer agreements 170 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement.....................................1751 171 Disclosing purpose and identity............................................................................................... 1752 172 Ceasing to negotiate on request..............................................................................................1753 173 Informing person of termination period etc..............................................................................1754 Subdivision B – Requirements for unsolicited consumer agreements etc 174 Requirement to give document to the consumer.................................................................... 1755 175 Requirements for all unsolicited consumer agreements etc................................................... 1755 176 Additional requirements for unsolicited consumer agreements not negotiated by telephone 1756 177 Requirements for amendments of unsolicited consumer agreements.................................... 1757 Subdivision C – Terminating unsolicited consumer agreements 178 Obligations of suppliers on termination................................................................................... 1758 179 Prohibition on supplies for 10 business days.......................................................................... 1758 180 Repayment of payments received after termination................................................................1759 181 Prohibition on recovering amounts after termination...............................................................1759 Subdivision D – Miscellaneous 182 Certain provisions of unsolicited consumer agreements void................................................. 1760 183 Waiver of rights........................................................................................................................ 1761 184 Application of this Division to persons to whom rights of consumers and suppliers are assigned etc............................................................................................................................. 1761 185 Application of this Division to supplies to third parties............................................................ 1762 186 Regulations may limit the application of this Division............................................................. 1762 187 Application of this Division to certain conduct covered by the Corporations Act....................1762 Division 3 – Lay-by agreements 188 Lay-by agreements must be in writing etc...............................................................................1762 189 Termination charges.................................................................................................................1763 190 Termination of lay-by agreements by suppliers....................................................................... 1763 191 Refund of amounts.................................................................................................................. 1764 Division 4 – Miscellaneous 192 Prescribed requirements for warranties against defects......................................................... 1765 193 Repairers must comply with prescribed requirements............................................................ 1765

Part 4-3 – Offences relating to safety of consumer goods and product related services Division 1 – Safety standards 194 Supplying etc consumer goods that do not comply with safety standards............................. 1767 195 Supplying etc product related services that do not comply with safety standards................. 1768 196 Requirement to nominate a safety standard........................................................................... 1769

36

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

Division 2 – Bans on consumer goods and product related services 197 Supplying etc consumer goods covered by a ban.................................................................. 1770 198 Supplying etc product related services covered by a ban...................................................... 1771 Division 3 – Recall of consumer goods 199 Compliance with recall orders..................................................................................................1772 200 Notification by persons who supply consumer goods outside Australia if there is compulsory recall.........................................................................................................................................1772 201 Notification requirements for a voluntary recall of consumer goods....................................... 1773 Division 4 – Consumer goods, or product related services, associated with death or serious injury or illness 202 Suppliers to report consumer goods etc associated with the death or serious injury or illness of any person........................................................................................................................... 1774 203 204

Supplying etc goods that do not comply with information standards......................................1775 Supplying etc services that do not comply with information standards.................................. 1776

Part 4-5 – Offences relating to substantiation notices 205 206

Compliance with substantiation notices...................................................................................1778 False or misleading information etc.........................................................................................1778

Part 4-6 – Defences 207 208 209 210 211

Reasonable mistake of fact..................................................................................................... 1780 Act or default of another person etc........................................................................................ 1781 Publication of advertisements in the ordinary course of business.......................................... 1783 Supplying goods acquired for the purpose of re-supply..........................................................1784 Supplying services acquired for the purpose of re-supply...................................................... 1784

Part 4-7 – Miscellaneous 212 213 214 215 216 217

Prosecutions to be commenced within 3 years.......................................................................1786 Preference must be given to compensation for victims.......................................................... 1786 Penalties for contraventions of the same nature etc...............................................................1787 Penalties for previous contraventions of the same nature etc................................................ 1788 Granting of injunctions etc....................................................................................................... 1789 Criminal proceedings not to be brought for contraventions of Chapter 2 or 3....................... 1789

CHAPTER 5 – ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES Part 5-1 – Enforcement Division 1 – Undertakings 218 Regulator may accept undertakings........................................................................................ 1790 Division 2 – Substantiation notices 219 Regulator may require claims to be substantiated etc............................................................ 1791 220 Extending periods for complying with substantiation notices.................................................. 1792 221 Compliance with substantiation notices...................................................................................1792 222 False or misleading information etc.........................................................................................1793 Division 3 – Public warning notices 223 Regulator may issue a public warning notice..........................................................................1793

Part 5-2 – Remedies Division 1 – Pecuniary penalties 224 Pecuniary penalties..................................................................................................................1794 225 Pecuniary penalties and offences............................................................................................1804 226 Defence.................................................................................................................................... 1805 227 Preference must be given to compensation for victims.......................................................... 1806 228 Civil action for recovery of pecuniary penalties.......................................................................1807 229 Indemnification of officers........................................................................................................ 1807

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

37

CCA

Part 4-4 – Offences relating to information standards

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

230

Certain indemnities not authorised and certain documents void............................................ 1807

Division 2 – Injunctions 232 Injunctions................................................................................................................................ 1808 233 Consent injunctions..................................................................................................................1812 234 Interim injunctions.................................................................................................................... 1812 235 Variation and discharge of injunctions..................................................................................... 1813 Division 3 – Damages 236 Actions for damages................................................................................................................ 1814 Division 4 – Compensation orders etc for injured persons and orders for non-party consumers Subdivision A – Compensation orders etc for injured persons 237 Compensation orders etc on application by an injured person or the regulator.....................1833 238 Compensation orders etc arising out of other proceedings.................................................... 1838 Subdivision B – Orders for non-party consumers 239 Orders to redress etc loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers.............................. 1839 240 Determining whether to make a redress order etc for non-party consumers......................... 1841 241 When a non-party consumer is bound by a redress order etc............................................... 1841 Subdivision C – Miscellaneous 242 Applications for orders............................................................................................................. 1841 243 Kinds of orders that may be made.......................................................................................... 1842 244 Power of a court to make orders............................................................................................. 1848 245 Interaction with other provisions.............................................................................................. 1848 Division 5 – Other remedies 246 Non-punitive orders..................................................................................................................1848 247 Adverse publicity orders...........................................................................................................1849 248 Order disqualifying a person from managing corporations..................................................... 1851 249 Privilege against exposure to penalty or forfeiture—disqualification from managing corporations............................................................................................................................. 1853 250 Declarations relating to consumer contracts and small business contracts........................... 1854 Division 6 – Defences 251 Publication of advertisement in the ordinary course of business............................................1855 252 Supplying consumer goods for the purpose of re-supply........................................................1856 253 Supplying product related services for the purpose of re-supply............................................1856

Part 5-3 – Country of origin representations 254 255 256 257 258

Overview.................................................................................................................................. 1858 Country of origin representations do not contravene certain provisions.................................1858 Cost of producing or manufacturing goods............................................................................. 1862 Rules for determining the percentage of costs of production or manufacture attributable to a country..................................................................................................................................... 1864 Proceedings relating to false, misleading or deceptive conduct or representations...............1864

Part 5-4 – Remedies relating to guarantees Division 1 – Action against suppliers Subdivision A – Action against suppliers of goods 259 Action against suppliers of goods............................................................................................1865 260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure.................................................1866 261 How suppliers may remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee.......................................... 1867 262 When consumers are not entitled to reject goods...................................................................1868 263 Consequences of rejecting goods........................................................................................... 1869 264 Replaced goods....................................................................................................................... 1870 265 Termination of contracts for the supply of services that are connected with rejected goods 1870

38

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of provisions

266

Rights of gift recipients............................................................................................................ 1870

Subdivision B – Action against suppliers of services 267 Action against suppliers of services........................................................................................ 1871 268 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure.................................................1872 269 Termination of contracts for the supply of services................................................................. 1872 270 Termination of contracts for the supply of goods that are connected with terminated services1873

Division 3 – Miscellaneous 274 Indemnification of suppliers by manufacturers........................................................................ 1875 275 Limitation of liability etc............................................................................................................1877 276 This Part not to be excluded etc by contract...........................................................................1878 276A Limitation in certain circumstances of liability of manufacturer to seller................................. 1879 277 Representative actions by the regulator.................................................................................. 1880

Part 5-5 – Liability of suppliers and credit providers Division 1 – Linked credit contracts 278 Liability of suppliers and linked credit providers relating to linked credit contracts................ 1881 279 Action by consumer to recover amount of loss or damage.................................................... 1882 280 Cases where a linked credit provider is not liable...................................................................1883 281 Amount of liability of linked credit providers............................................................................ 1884 282 Counter-claims and offsets...................................................................................................... 1884 283 Enforcement of judgments etc................................................................................................. 1885 284 Award of interest to consumers............................................................................................... 1885 285 Liability of suppliers to linked credit providers, and of linked credit providers to suppliers.... 1886 286 Joint liability proceedings and recovery under section 135 of the National Credit Code....... 1886 Division 2 – Non-linked credit contracts 287 Liability of suppliers and credit providers relating to non-linked credit contracts....................1887

CHAPTER 6 – APPLICATION AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS Part 1 – Application and transitional provisions relating to the Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 288 289 290

Application of amendments relating to lay-by agreements..................................................... 1888 Application of amendment relating to repairs.......................................................................... 1888 Saving of regulations relating to repairs.................................................................................. 1888

Part 1A – Application provision relating to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2015 290A

Application................................................................................................................................1889

Schedule 3 [NOT REPRODUCED] [Editor’s Note: On 1 January 2011, the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 2) 2010, Act No 103 of 2010, changed the name of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

39

CCA

Division 2 – Action for damages against manufacturers of goods 271 Action for damages against manufacturers of goods..............................................................1873 272 Damages that may be recovered by action against manufacturers of goods........................ 1875 273 Time limit for actions against manufacturers of goods............................................................1875

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Table of Amending Legislation Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 56 of 1975 12 Jun 1975 Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Act 1975

follows: Date of commencement S 38: 1 Jul 1975 (Gaz S122, 24 Jun 1975, p 1); Schs 2 and 3: 12 Jun 1975 19 Jun 1975 31 Aug 1976 Sch: 1 Feb 1977 (Gaz S3, 18 Jan 1977, p 2) 1 Jul 1977 S 18: 28 Oct 1977; s 19(1): 1 Jun 1977 10 Nov 1977

Trade Practices Act 1975 Trade Practices Amendment Act 1976 Federal Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Act 1976

63 of 1975 88 of 1976 157 of 1976

19 Jun 1975 31 Aug 1976 9 Dec 1976

Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977 Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Act 1977 Trade Practices Amendment Act (No 2) 1977 Trade Practices Amendment Act 1978 Trade Practices Amendment Act (No 2) 1978 Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Act 1980 Statute Law Revision Act 1981 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 1981 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No 2) 1982 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 1) 1983 Public Service Reform Act 1984

81 of 1977 111 of 1977

16 Jun 1977 28 Oct 1977

151 of 1977

10 Nov 1977

206 of 1978 207 of 1978

6 Dec 1978 6 Dec 1978

6 Dec 1978 6 Dec 1978

73 of 1980

29 May 1980

29 May 1980

61 of 1981 176 of 1981

12 Jun 1981 2 Dec 1981

80 of 1982

22 Sep 1982

39 of 1983

20 Jun 1983

Sch 1: 12 Jun 1981 Sch 1: 30 Dec 1981 Ss 278 and 279: 20 Oct 1982 Sch 1: 18 Jul 1983

63 of 1984

25 Jun 1984

40

Sch 4: 1 Jul 1984 (Gaz S245, 29 Jun 1984, p 1)

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Remuneration and Allowances 73 of 1984 25 Jun 1984 Amendment Act 1984 25 Oct 1984 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) 165 of 1984 Act (No 2) 1984 (am by Trade Practices Revision Act 1986) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) 65 of 1985 5 Jun 1985 Act (No 1) 1985 Trade Practices (Transfer of Market 8 of 1986 1 May 1986 Dominance) Amendment Act 1986 Trade Practices Revision Act 1986

17 of 1986

13 May 1986

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) 168 of 1986 Act (No 2) 1986 Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous 23 of 1987 Amendments) Act 1987

18 Dec 1986

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) 141 of 1987 Act 1987

18 Dec 1987

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

26 May 1987

follows: Date of commencement Ss 22 and 23: 25 Jun 1984 Sch 1: 25 Oct 1984

Sch 1: 3 Jul 1985 1 Jun 1986 (Gaz S251, 30 May 1986, p 1) Ss 1, 2, 49(1), 51(1) and 64(1): 13 May 1986; ss 74–76: 25 Oct 1984; ss 31 and 35: 1 Jul 1986; remainder: 1 Jun 1986 (Gaz S251, 30 May 1986, p 1) Sch 1: 18 Dec 1986 Sch: 1 Sep 1987 (Gaz S217, 24 Oct 1987, p 1) Sch 1: 1 Apr 1989 (Gaz S88, 13 Mar 1989, p 1)

41

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 5 Apr 1988 Family Court of Australia (Additional 8 of 1988 Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988 (am by Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1988) Trade Practices Amendment Act 1988 20 of 1988 11 May 1988

87 of 1988 Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (am by Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 1990) Circuit Layouts Act 1989 28 of 1989

8 Nov 1988

Trade Practices (International Liner Cargo Shipping) Amendment Act 1989

30 May 1989

34 of 1989

22 May 1989

Law and Justice Legislation 11 of 1990 Amendment Act 1989 Trade Practices (Misuse of 70 of 1990 Trans-Tasman Market Power) Act 1990

17 Jan 1990

Trade Practices Amendment Act 1991 Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Transport and Communications Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991

49 of 1991 122 of 1991

24 Apr 1991 27 Jun 1991

136 of 1991

12 Sep 1991

173 of 1991

25 Nov 1991

180 of 1991

25 Nov 1991

42

16 Jun 1990

follows: Date of commencement Ss 41 and 42: 1 Jul 1988 (Gaz S191, 30 Jun 1988, p 1) S 4: 1 Jul 1988; remainder: 11 May 1988 Sch 2: 1 Mar 1989 (Gaz S53, 14 Feb 1989, p 1) Sch: 1 Oct 1990 (Gaz S261, 26 Sep 1990, p 1) 1 Aug 1989 (Gaz S260, 1 Aug 1989, p 1) Ss 58 and 59: 14 Feb 1990 1 Jul 1990 (Gaz S172, 29 Jun 1990, p 1) 21 Dec 1990 Sch: 27 Jun 1991 Ss 22–24: 10 Oct 1991 Ss 49–55 and Sch: 25 Nov 1991 Sch: 23 Dec 1991

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Law and Justice Legislation 22 of 1992 13 Apr 1992 Amendment Act 1992 Territories Law Reform Act 1992 104 of 1992 30 Jun 1992 105 of 1992 9 Jul 1992 Broadcasting Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1992 Trade Practices Amendment Act 1992 Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act 1992 Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993

106 of 1992 222 of 1992

9 Jul 1992 24 Dec 1992

98 of 1993

22 Dec 1993

Insurance Laws Amendment Act (No 2) 49 of 1994 1994 Law and Justice Legislation 141 of 1994 Amendment Act (No 2) 1994 Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 88 of 1995

7 Apr 1994

Statute Law Revision Act 1996

25 Oct 1996

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

43 of 1996

28 Nov 1994 20 Jul 1995

follows: Date of commencement Sch: 13 Apr 1992 Sch 4: 1 Jul 1992 Sch 2: 5 Oct 1992 (Gaz GN38, 23 Sep 1992, p 2615) 9 Jul 1992 21 Jan 1993 Ss 42–47 and Sch 3: 30 Mar 1994 (Gaz S104, 28 Mar 1994) Sch item 19: 7 Apr 1994 Sch 1 items 21–26: 28 Nov 1994 Ss 3–32: 17 Aug 1995; ss 35–76: 6 Nov 1995 (Gaz S423, 3 Nov 1995, p 1); ss 80–87 and 91: 20 Jul 1996 Sch 4 item 147: 25 Oct 1996

43

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 60 of 1996 25 Nov 1996 Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (am by Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 1996) Trade Practices Amendment (Industry 28 of 1997 10 Apr 1997 Access Codes) Act 1997 Trade Practices Amendment 58 of 1997 30 Apr 1997 (Telecommunications) Act 1997 Audit (Transitional and Miscellaneous) 152 of 1997 24 Oct 1997 Amendment Act 1997

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Act 1997 Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Act 1998

200 of 1997

16 Dec 1997

36 of 1998

22 Apr 1998

Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Act 1998

48 of 1998

29 Jun 1998

Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) 101 of 1998 Act 1998 Trade Practices Amendment (Country 106 of 1998 of Origin Representations) Act 1998

44

30 Jul 1998 30 Jul 1998

follows: Date of commencement Sch 17 items 1–11 and 14–24: 17 Jan 1997 (Gaz S18, 17 Jan 1997) 10 Apr 1997 30 Apr 1997 Sch 2 item 1260: 1 Jan 1998 (Gaz GN49, 10 Dec 1997) Sch 2 items 30–34: 30 Apr 1997 Sch 1: 22 Apr 1998; Sch 2: 1 Jul 1998 (Gaz S301, 25 Jun 1998) Sch 1 item 194 and Sch 2 items 24–29: 1 Jul 1998 (Gaz S316, 30 Jun 1998) Sch 1 items 11–56: 30 Jul 1998 Sch 1: 13 Aug 1998 (Gaz S398, 12 Aug 1998); Schs 2 and 3: 30 Jul 1998

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Telecommunications Legislation 52 of 1999 5 Jul 1999 Amendment Act 1999

A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Act 1999 Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 A New Tax System (Indirect and Consequential Amendments) Act 1999 Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Act 1999 Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2000 A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Act 2000

61 of 1999

8 Jul 1999

146 of 1999

11 Nov 1999

176 of 1999

22 Dec 1999

194 of 1999

23 Dec 1999

57 of 2000

30 May 2000

69 of 2000

22 Jun 2000

Trade Practices Amendment (International Liner Cargo Shipping) Act 2000

123 of 2000

5 Oct 2000

Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2000

161 of 2000

21 Dec 2000

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1 items 6–77: 5 Jul 1999; Sch 3 items 69–76 and 81: 2 Aug 1999; Sch 4 items 17–20 and 28: 1 Jul 1999 Sch 1: 9 Jul 1999 Sch 1 items 944– 955: 5 Dec 1999 Sch 4: 22 Dec 1999 Sch 25: 23 Dec 1999 Sch 1 items 77–90: 30 May 2000 Sch 2 item 1: 6 Nov 1995; Sch 2 item 2: 10 Apr 1997; remainder: 22 Jun 2000 Sch 1 items 1–153: 2 Nov 2000; Sch 1 items 154–170: 2 Mar 2001 Sch 1 items 4 and 5: 21 Dec 2000

45

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 31 of 2001 28 Apr 2001 Treasury Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act (No 1) 2001 (am by Statute Law Revision Act 2002) Communications and the Arts 46 of 2001 5 Jun 2001 Legislation Amendment Act 2001 Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials 55 of 2001 28 Jun 2001 and Transitionals) Act 2001 28 Jun 2001 Trade Practices Amendment Act (No 1) 63 of 2001 2001 (am by Statute Law Revision Act 2002) Treasury Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act (No 3) 2001 Financial Services Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 2001 Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Act 2001 Treasury Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act (No 2) 2001 Statute Law Revision Act 2002

Sch 1 items 9–18: 5 Jun 2001 Sch 3 items 550– 557: 15 Jul 2001 Sch 2 items 1, 2, 6 and 7: 15 Dec 2001; remainder: 26 Jul 2001 Sch 3 items 16–56: 15 Dec 2001

117 of 2001

18 Sep 2001

123 of 2001

27 Sep 2001

124 of 2001

27 Sep 2001

146 of 2001

1 Oct 2001

Sch 2: 15 Dec 2001

63 of 2002

3 Jul 2002

Sch 1 items 34, 35 and 38: 1 Jul 1999; Sch 1 items 36 and 37: 3 Jul 2002 11 Dec 2002

Trade Practices Amendment Act (No 1) 128 of 2002 2002 Telecommunications Competition Act 140 of 2002 2002

46

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1 items 240– 290: 15 Dec 2001

11 Dec 2002 19 Dec 2002

Sch 1 items 364– 365B: 11 Mar 2002 27 Sep 2001

Sch 2: 19 Dec 2002

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Trade Practices Amendment (Liability 146 of 2002 19 Dec 2002 for Recreational Services) Act 2002 Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 7 of 2003 19 Mar 2003 2003 Industry, Tourism and Resources 21 of 2003 11 Apr 2003 Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Trade Practices Legislation 134 of 2003 17 Dec 2003 Amendment Act 2003

Postal Services Legislation Amendment 69 of 2004 Act 2004 103 of 2004 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004

22 Jun 2004

Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Energy Market) Act 2004

108 of 2004

30 Jun 2004

Trade Practices Amendment (Personal 113 of 2004 Injuries and Death) Act (No 2) 2004 Treasury Legislation Amendment 118 of 2004 (Professional Standards) Act 2004 Australian Communications and Media 45 of 2005 Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005

13 Jul 2004

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

30 Jun 2004

13 Jul 2004 1 Apr 2005

follows: Date of commencement 19 Dec 2002 Sch 2: 19 March 2003 Sch 1 items 25–28: 12 Apr 2003 Sch 1 and Sch 2 items 32–43: 1 Mar 2004 (Gaz GN8, 25 Feb 2004, p 439) Sch 1 item 25: 22 Jun 2004 Sch 3 items 5 and 6: 26 Jul 2004 (Gaz GN28, 14 Jul 2004, p 2157) Sch 1: 23 May 2005 (F2005L01121) 13 Jul 2004 Sch 1 items 8A–11: 13 Jul 2004 Sch 1 items 168– 171 and Sch 2: 1 Jul 2005

47

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 119 of 2005 23 Sep 2005 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Act 2005

follows: Date of commencement Schs 4–6 and Sch 7 items 1–3, 5–12, 14–19 and 21–28 and Schs 9 and 12: 24 Sep 2005; Sch 7 items 4, 13 and 20: 23 Mar 2006; Sch 11 items 8 and 9: 1 Jan 2006 (F2005L04117) Sch 1: 20 Apr 2006

Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Act 2006 Offshore Petroleum (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Act 2006 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court Legislation Amendment Act 2006 Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2006 (No 1) Energy Legislation Amendment Act 2006

11 of 2006

23 Mar 2006

17 of 2006

29 Mar 2006

23 of 2006

6 Apr 2006

SLI 50 of 2006

17 Mar 2006

Sch 15: 27 Mar 2006

60 of 2006

22 Jun 2006

Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Act 2006

92 of 2006

18 Aug 2006

Sch 1 items 2–13 and Sch 2 item 14: 22 Jun 2006; Sch 2 items 12, 13, 15 and 16: 23 May 2005 Sch 1: 1 Oct 2006 (F2006L02999)

48

Sch 2 items 113– 116: 1 Jul 2008 Sch 1: 4 May 2006

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Tax Laws Amendment (Repeal of 101 of 2006 14 Sep 2006 Inoperative Provisions) Act 2006 Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Act 2006 Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006

109 of 2006

27 Sep 2006

131 of 2006

6 Nov 2006

Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Act 2007

45 of 2007

10 Apr 2007

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Act 2007

68 of 2007

28 May 2007

85 of 2007 Corporations (NZ Closer Economic Relations) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 Water (Consequential Amendments) Act 138 of 2007 2007 Trade Practices Legislation 159 of 2007 Amendment Act (No 1) 2007

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

21 Jun 2007

3 Sep 2007 24 Sep 2007

follows: Date of commencement Sch 5 items 164 and 165: 14 Sep 2006 Sch 2 items 97– 103: 27 Sep 2006

Sch 11: 6 Nov 2006; Sch 10: 7 Nov 2006; Schs 1–8 and Sch 9 items 1–14, 20, 22 and 23: 1 Jan 2007 (F2006L04026) Sch 1 items 58–81: 1 Jul 2008 (F2008L02164) Sch 1 items 178– 182: 29 May 2007; Sch 2 item 3: 19 Jul 2007 Sch 3 items 3–9: 19 Jul 2007 Sch 1 items 6–8: 3 Mar 2008 Schs 1 and 2 and Sch 3 items 5–8: 25 Sep 2007

49

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Trade Practices Amendment (Access 7 of 2008 20 Mar 2008 Declarations) Act 2008 Australian Energy Market Amendment 60 of 2008 30 Jun 2008 (Minor Amendments) Act 2008 Trade Practices Legislation 116 of 2008 21 Nov 2008 Amendment Act 2008

Offshore Petroleum Amendment 117 of 2008 (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Act 2008 Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in 126 of 2008 Pricing) Act 2008

21 Nov 2008

Water Amendment Act 2008

8 Dec 2008

139 of 2008

25 Nov 2008

Australian Energy Market Amendment 17 of 2009 (AEMO and Other Measures) Act 2009

26 Mar 2009

54 of 2009 Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Act 2009

25 Jun 2009

50

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1: 20 Mar 2008 Sch 4: 1 Jul 2008 Sch 1 items 1A, 3, 4A, 5 and 7, Sch 2 items 1A, 3, 4A and 5 and Sch 3 items 7–12, 13A and 14: 22 Nov 2008 Sch 3 item 60: 22 Nov 2008 Sch 1: 25 May 2009; Sch 2: 26 Nov 2008 Sch 2 items 3–5: 15 Dec 2008 (F2008L04656) Sch 1 items 12 and 14: 27 Mar 2009; Sch 1 item 13: 1 Jul 2009 (F2009L02489) Sch 18 items 24– 31: 1 Jul 2009

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration 59 of 2009 26 Jun 2009 Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act 2009

Statute Stocktake (Regulatory and Other Laws) Act 2009

111 of 2009

16 Nov 2009

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No 2) 2010 Statute Law Revision Act 2010

4 of 2010

19 Feb 2010

8 of 2010

1 Mar 2010

44 of 2010 Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 1) 2010

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

14 Apr 2010

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1 items 3–128 and Sch 2 items 1–49: 24 Jul 2009; Sch 2 items 50 and 51: 27 Jun 2009 Sch 1 items 26–48 and 107–109: 17 Nov 2009 Sch 11 item 23: 20 Feb 2010 Sch 5 items 125, 126 and 137: 1 Mar 2010 Sch 2 items 1–26 and Sch 4 item 3: 15 Apr 2010; Sch 1 items 1 and 3–11, Sch 2 items 27, 29, 31, 32, 41–43, 46–50, 56–70 and 72–74 and Sch 4 items 4 and 5: 1 Jul 2010 (F2010L01315)

51

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Trade Practices Amendment 102 of 2010 13 Jul 2010 (Infrastructure Access) Act 2010

103 of 2010 Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 2) 2010 (am by Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2011 and Statute Law Revision Act 2012) 140 of 2010 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Act 2010

13 Jul 2010

Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act 2010 Statute Law Revision Act 2011

148 of 2010

17 Dec 2010

5 of 2011

22 Mar 2011

23 of 2011 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Act 2011 (am by Statute Law Revision Act 2012) Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 46 of 2011 2011

52

15 Dec 2010

12 Apr 2011

27 Jun 2011

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1 items 1–6, 8–43, 45–52 and 54–71, Sch 2, Sch 3 items 1–10, Sch 4 items 1–4 and Sch 5 items 1–19: 14 Jul 2010 Schs 1, 2, 4 and 5: 1 Jan 2011

Sch 1 items 32–39, 114–197, 211 and 212: 1 Jan 2011; Sch 1 items 66 and 67: 6 Mar 2012 Sch 6 item 1: 18 Dec 2010 Sch 7 items 38 and 39: 19 Apr 2011 Sch 1 items 25–82: 13 Apr 2011; Sch 1 items 89–114: 12 Apr 2012 Sch 2 items 409– 441: 27 Dec 2011

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Carbon Credits (Consequential 102 of 2011 15 Sep 2011 Amendments) Act 2011 Australian Energy Market Amendment 119 of 2011 14 Oct 2011 (National Energy Retail Law) Act 2011 Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Act 2011

132 of 2011

18 Nov 2011

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1 item 8: 8 Dec 2011 Sch 2 items 2–12 and 14–25: 1 Jul 2012 Sch 1 items 100– 102: 2 Apr 2012; Sch 1 items 258B– 258D: 1 Jul 2012 Sch 2 items 2–4: 1 Jan 2012; Sch 1: 6 Feb 2012 Sch 1: 6 Jun 2012

Competition and Consumer Legislation 184 of 2011 Amendment Act 2011

6 Dec 2011

Competition and Consumer Amendment Act (No 1) 2011 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Act 2012 Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 Statute Law Revision Act 2012

185 of 2011

6 Dec 2011

44 of 2012

16 Apr 2012

Sch 1 item 4: 1 Jul 2012

130 of 2012

17 Sep 2012

Sch 7: 17 Sep 2013

136 of 2012

22 Sep 2012

Sch 1 items 31–36: 22 Sep 2012 Sch 2 items 160– 167: 3 Dec 2012

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits 169 of 2012 Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Act 2012 Federal Circuit Court of Australia 13 of 2013 (Consequential Amendments) Act 2013

3 Dec 2012

Statute Law Revision Act 2013

29 Jun 2013

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

103 of 2013

14 Mar 2013

Sch 1 items 87–92 and Sch 2 item 1: 12 Apr 2013 Sch 1 item 32 and Sch 3 items 69–74: 29 Jun 2013

53

CCA

Principal legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Principal legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Competition and Consumer Amendment 104 of 2013 29 Jun 2013 Act 2013 30 Jun 2014 Public Governance, Performance and 62 of 2014 Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2014 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax 83 of 2014 17 Jul 2014 Repeal) Act 2014 Competition and Consumer Amendment 107 of 2014 24 Sep 2014 (Industry Code Penalties) Act 2014 Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) 109 of 2014 16 Oct 2014 Act 2014 Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Act 2015 Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) (Consequential Provisions) Act 2015 Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2015 Statute Law Revision Act (No 1) 2016

Sch 5 items 111 and 112 and Sch 6 item 35: 1 Jul 2014 Sch 2: 18 Jul 2014 Sch 1: 1 Jan 2015 Sch 2 items 2, 3, 112, 113 and 187: 17 Oct 2014 Sch 3 items 68–75: 5 Mar 2016 Sch 1 items 7–10: 1 Jul 2015 Sch 1 items 128– 148: 5 Mar 2016

10 of 2015

5 Mar 2015

38 of 2015

13 Apr 2015

126 of 2015

10 Sep 2015

147 of 2015

12 Nov 2015

Sch 1 items 19–47: 12 Nov 2016

4 of 2016

11 Feb 2016

Sch 4 items 66–68 and Sch 5 item 4: 10 Mar 2016 Sch 1: 25 Feb 2016

Competition and Consumer Amendment 9 of 2016 (Payment Surcharges) Act 2016 Courts Administration Legislation 24 of 2016 Amendment Act 2016

54

follows: Date of commencement Sch 1: 30 Jun 2013

25 Feb 2016 18 Mar 2016

Sch 5 item 8: 1 Jul 2016

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Table of Amending Legislation

Number

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

51 of 1974

Date of gazettal/ Date of commenceassent/registration ment 24 Aug 1974 Ss 1 and 2: 24 Aug 1974; s 55: 27 Sep 1975 (Gaz S178, 8 Sep 1975); remainder: 1 Oct 1974 (Gaz 75B, 13 Sep 1974)

This legislation (formerly titled Trade Practices Act 1974) has been amended as Amending legislation Number Date of gazettal/ assent/registration Territories Legislation Amendment Act 33 of 2016 23 Mar 2016 2016 Statute Update Act 2016 61 of 2016 23 Sep 2016

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

follows: Date of commencement Sch 5 items 25–28: 1 Jul 2016 Sch 1 items 152 and 153 and Sch 3 items 13 and 14: 21 Oct 2016

55

CCA

Principal legislation

An Act relating to competition, fair trading and consumer protection, and for other purposes [Long title am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 1, with effect from 1 Jan 2011]

PART I – PRELIMINARY 1

Short title This Act may be cited as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

[S 1 am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 2, with effect from 1 Jan 2011]

SECTION 1 COMMENTARY Background ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.1.20] Further reading .................................................................................................................................. [CCA.1.40]

Background

The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (Cth) was Australia’s first competition law. That Act was modelled on the US Sherman Act 1890 which was directed at resolving public concern in the USA at the abuse of power by large and powerful conglomerates, especially in the oil, railway and tobacco industries. The Sherman Act 1890 contains two brief prohibitions: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal … Every person who shall monopolise, or attempt to monopolise, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolise any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanour … The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 was directed against contracts and “combinations” in restraint of interstate or overseas trade and commerce. Under the Act, a person found to have entered such a contract or to have been party to such a “combination” was liable for a fine and treble damages, unless the person could establish that the conduct was neither a detriment to the public nor unreasonable in all of the circumstances. Although the Sherman Act 1890 flourished in the USA, the Australian legislation suffered a different fate. The first attempt to apply its provisions to monopolistic business practices ended in a constitutional challenge, Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330; 15 ALR 241, in which the High Court declared key provisions of the statute unconstitutional because they purported to regulate corporate behaviour, a power reserved to the States. After a further successful challenge to the statute in the context of combinations to control prices, output and distribution of coal in interstate trade, Attorney-General (Cth) v Adelaide Steamship Company Ltd (1913) 18 CLR 30; [1913] AC 781; (1913) 19 ALR 405; 109 LT 258; 29 TLR 743; 83 LJPC 84 (the Coal Vend Case), the Australian legislation was no longer thought workable. Attempts to redress the issue through constitutional amendment failed. Thereafter, although the legislation was not repealed until 1965, it served no useful purpose. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

57

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.1.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s2

[CCA.1.20]

Sir Garfield Barwick is credited with reviving interest in anti-monopoly laws in this country. Barwick is reputed to have convinced the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, to include in the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament a statement that “[t]he development of tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry has engaged the attention of the government which will give consideration to legislation to protect and strengthen free enterprise against such a development”: House of Representatives Hansard, 8 March 1960. In December 1962, Barwick’s proposal for legislation based on the UK Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 was presented to Parliament, but it was not until 1965 that the legislation was actually passed, receiving Royal Assent on 18 December 1965. That new legislation, the Trade Practices Act 1965 (Cth), introduced the concept of examinable agreements and practices which were examinable by a new tribunal, the Trade Practices Tribunal, to determine whether they were contrary to the public interest, on application only by an independent Commissioner of Trade Practices. Subsequent constitutional challenges established the right of the Commonwealth to legislate in relation to corporations: see Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 468; 45 ALJR 485; [1972] ALR 3. Armed with the constitutional authority to move against monopolistic practices, the Whitlam Labor Government, elected in 1972, set about designing a new competition and consumer protection statute for Australia based once again on the US model. Lionel Murphy, then the Attorney-General and later a Justice of the High Court, introduced the Trade Practices Bill 1974 and after heated debate that Bill became law on 1 October 1974. In 2008 the Productivity Commission published a report on the state of consumer protection laws in Australia: Review of Australia’s Consumer Policy Framework, Inquiry Report No 45 (Canberra, 30 April 2008). That report recommended a complete overhaul of relevant Federal, State and Territory consumer protection laws because legislation had developed over time into a complex and disharmonious legislative framework, containing many overlaps and inconsistencies, which led to confusion for both businesses and consumers as to rights, remedies and compliance needs. The result is the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) – a single harmonious legislative framework for the Commonwealth, States and Territories, based on the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) (Pts IVA, V, VA and VC plus definitions and offences) and the unfair contract terms provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic), and housed in Sch 2 to the TPA, that came into force on 1 January 2011. The Act itself was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). [CCA.1.40]

Further reading

Marr, Barwick (Unwin, 1980), Ch 15; Masterman and Solomon, Australian Trade Practices Law (Butterworths, 1967), p 33; Donald and Heydon, Trade Practices Law (Law Book Co, 1978), Ch 1; Richardson, Introduction to Australian Trade Practices Act (Hicks Smith, 1967); Walker, Australian Monopoly Law (Cheshire); Whitlam, The Whitlam Government (Penguin, 1985), pp 624-627; Productivity Commission Review of Australia’s Consumer Policy Framework, Inquiry Report No 45 (Canberra, 30 April 2008). 2

Object of this Act

The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection. [S 2 reinsrt Act 88 of 1995, s 3; rep Act 81 of 1977, s 3]

58

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2.20]

s 2A

SECTION 2 COMMENTARY [CCA.2.20]

Interpretation of the Act

The Act, in particular Pt IV, is a complex piece of legal drafting. As cases before the courts show, especially on issues such as the correct interpretation and application of s 46 (misuse of market power) and s 4D (exclusionary provision), the words of the sections are open to a wide variety of possible interpretations. It is therefore instructive to reflect on the following statement by Kirby J (in minority) in Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414 at [70] (ALR): It is in the context of such legislative opacity and unwieldiness that it is essential, in my view, to adopt a construction of the TPA that achieves the apparent purposes of that Act by furthering the objectives of Australian competition law. Keeping such purposes in mind helps to shine the light essential to finding one’s way through the maze created by the statutory language. Even then, there is a substantial danger of losing one’s way in the encircling gloom. As McHugh J said in the same case: Questions of construction are notorious for generating opposing answers, none of which can be said to be either clearly right or clearly wrong. Frequently, there is simply no “right” answer to a question of construction. Application of Act to Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities

(1) [Act binds the Crown] Subject to this section and sections 44AC, 44E and 95D, this Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in so far as the Crown in right of the Commonwealth carries on a business, either directly or by an authority of the Commonwealth. [Subs (1) am Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 32; Act 88 of 1995, s 35; Act 34 of 1989, s 3]

(2) [Act applies as if Commonwealth were a corporation] Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, this Act applies as if: (a) the Commonwealth, in so far as it carries on a business otherwise than by an authority of the Commonwealth; and (b) each authority of the Commonwealth (whether or not acting as an agent of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth) in so far as it carries on a business; were a corporation. (3) [Crown immune to liability] Nothing in this Act makes the Crown in right of the Commonwealth liable to a pecuniary penalty or to be prosecuted for an offence. [Subs (3) subst Act 88 of 1995, s 80]

(3A) [Liability for Commonwealth authorities] The protection in subsection (3) does not apply to an authority of the Commonwealth. [Subs (3A) insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 80]

(4) [Application of Part IV] Part IV does not apply in relation to the business carried on by the Commonwealth in developing, and disposing of interests in, land in the Australian Capital Territory. [S 2A am Act 108 of 2004; Act 134 of 2003; Act 88 of 1995; Act 34 of 1989; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 4]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

59

CCA ss 1-6AA

2A

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2A

[CCA.2A.20]

SECTION 2A COMMENTARY Summary ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2A.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.2A.40] Concept: Crown in right of the Commonwealth .............................................................................. [CCA.2A.60] Concept: carries on a business ....................................................................................................... [CCA.2A.80] Definition: person ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.2A.100] Definition: authority ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.2A.120] Land in the Australian Capital Territory ......................................................................................... [CCA.2A.140] Cases ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.2A.160]

[CCA.2A.20]

Summary

The Act binds the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth authorities insofar as they carry on business. The intention is that those dealing in a business context with the Commonwealth and its authorities will have the same protection as when dealing with others. The section overcomes the general principle that no statute binds the Crown unless the Crown is expressly named in it or unless there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound: Province of Bombay v Bombay Municipal Corp [1947] AC 58. A fundamental first question in considering the application of this section is whether or not the entity under consideration is, in fact, part of the Crown. If it is not then the Act will apply to it without reference to this section. The concept “carrying on business” has different meanings in different contexts so determining when the Act will apply to the Commonwealth and its authorities is not always a straight-forward issue, especially as s 4 makes it clear that the term “business” includes businesses not carried on for profit. In the context of the Act, the concept involves engaging in, or commencing to engage in, continuous and repetitive activities of a business nature as a going concern. However, a number of specific exceptions are listed in s 2C. For the most part, activities listed would seem to be governmental in nature, rather than of a business character. A second point of note is that the Act only applies “insofar as” the Commonwealth or authority is carrying on a business. It does not necessarily apply to all activities undertaken by the relevant Commonwealth entity. The Commonwealth cannot be found liable for pecuniary penalties nor can it be prosecuted (for example for a cartel offence), but this does not extend to their authorities. Section 46B makes it clear that the Commonwealth and its authorities are not immune from the application of the prohibition in the New Zealand Commerce Act 1986 on taking advantage of market power in trans-Tasman markets, or production of documents in an investigation by the New Zealand Commerce Commission of possible contraventions of that prohibition. [CCA.2A.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that s 2A be amended to apply the competition provisions of the Act to the Commonwealth and its authorities insofar as they undertake activities in trade or commerce, rather than only to the extent that they carry on a business. [CCA.2A.60]

Concept: Crown in right of the Commonwealth

Whether or not Crown immunity applies in relation to challenged conduct is to be determined by reference to the legislation establishing the body the activities engaged in pursuant to that legislation and the nature and extent of governmental or ministerial control: Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank [1969] HCA 44; (1969) 119 CLR 334; 43 ALJR 330; [1970] ALR 241. It is necessary to determine, through interpretation of the legislation, whether the relevant activities are to be classified as activities of the Crown. In that

60

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2A.80]

s 2A

[CCA.2A.80] Concept: carries on a business Section 2A makes it clear that the Commonwealth is only to be bound by the Act where the conduct complained of is engaged in, in the course of carrying on a business. In other words, the section confirms, by implication, that Crown immunity applies except to the extent that it is abrogated insofar as the Crown carries on business, either directly or by Commonwealth authority: see ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519. Those dealing with the Commonwealth when it actually conducts a business have the same protection as when dealing with private traders but do not have that protection in other dealings with the Commonwealth: JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175. The term “business” is defined in CCA s 4 and ACL s 2(1), but only in an inclusive sense to make it clear that to constitute a business the relevant activities do not have to be carried on for profit: see [CCA.4.100]. While the word “business” in any particular context takes its meaning from that context, normally it is a “wide and general” word: Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285 at 184 (CLR) per Gibbs CJ; NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. See also Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; 54 ALJR 345; 29 ALR 577; 12 ATR 231 at 8-9 (CLR), 582-583 (ALR). Section 2C is also relevant. It lists a series of governmental activities which will not be regarded, if engaged in by the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, as carrying on business: see [CCA.2C.20]. The term “carrying on business” has different meanings in different contexts: Luckins v Highway Motel (Carnarvon) Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 164; 50 ALJR 309; 7 ALR 413 at 178 (CLR). The term “business” is not a term of legal art. It is “an etymological chameleon; it suits its meaning to the context in which it is found”: Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment [1978] AC 359 at 383. In Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; 54 ALJR 345; 29 ALR 577; 12 ATR 231 at 8-9 (CLR), Mason J stated that the term “business” denotes “activities undertaken as a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern, that is, activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis” or, as Gibbs J put it in Smith v Capewell (1979) 142 CLR 509; 53 ALJR 725; 26 ALR 507 at 517 (CLR): “‘carry on business’, in its ordinary meaning, signifies a course of conduct involving the performance of a succession of acts, and not simply the effecting of one solitary transaction.” See also GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 50; (2003) 128 FCR 1; Corrections Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1280; (2000) 104 FCR 448. The object of the Act (insofar as it applies to the Commonwealth) is to prevent anti-competitive conduct in the course of carrying on a business. It may be assumed that the Act is intended to apply from the earliest point of commencement of carrying on business. Accordingly, the Commonwealth may be regarded as beginning to carry on a business, for instance of constructing and operating an asset, as soon as it starts to take steps to acquire the asset for the purposes of that operation: Murphy v State of Victoria [2014] VSCA 238; (2014) 289 FLR 337.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

61

CCA ss 1-6AA

respect, matters such as the nature of the activities and the extent of ministerial control over those activities will be relevant: see Townsville Hospitals Board v Townsville City Council (1982) 149 CLR 282; 56 ALJR 789; 42 ALR 319. Most of the cases relating to this issue have considered the difficult question of whether or not a particular statutory authority was entitled to immunity because it was to be regarded as part of the Crown or not: see, for example, Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1969) 119 CLR 334; 43 ALJR 330; [1970] ALR 241; NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2002] FCAFC 302; (2002) 122 FCR 399; [2003] ATPR 41-909; ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519; Re Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd; the Esplanade Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 18 FCR 212; [1988] ATPR 40-835; [1987] FCA 454. However, as the Act applies to the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth, whether acting directly or through an authority, the distinction between what is, and what is not, an act of the Crown is irrelevant.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2A

[CCA.2A.80]

However, repetitiveness alone is not sufficient to constitute carrying on of a business. As Emmett J pointed out in JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175 at 354 (FCR): it does not necessarily follow that one who has transactions of the same kind systematically or regularly is carrying on a business in those transactions. The example of regular deposits to a bank account is sufficient to explain that proposition. Absence of a system and regularity might deny that a business is being carried on but the presence does not necessarily establish that it is. See also Hungier v Grace (1972) 127 CLR 210; 46 ALJR 492; [1972-73] ALR 759 at 217 (CLR). Nothing in the Act limits the meaning of “business” by reference to the criteria for market definition. Businesses often operate across the boundaries of separate markets: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [69]. The Act only applies “in so far as” the Commonwealth carries on business. This means that it is not sufficient to determine that some business is carried on. What is required is a determination that, in undertaking the conduct complained of, the Commonwealth did so as part of carrying on business: JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175; NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2001] FCA 334; (2001) 184 ALR 481; [2001] ATPR 41-814. However, to come within the provision, the conduct need not itself be the actual business engaged in: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [67]. The carrying out of the functions of government in the performance of its statutory duty, whether directly or through an authority, is unlikely to be characterised as “carrying on a business”: Village Building Company Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Limited (No 2) [2004] FCA 133; (2004) 134 FCR 422. [CCA.2A.100]

Definition: person

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides that the word “person” includes a body politic unless the legislation evidences a contrary intention. As a result of s 2A, there is a contrary intention in relation to the term “person” in ss 6(3) and 75B: Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334; 73 ALJR 522; 161 ALR 399; [1999] ATPR 41-682. [CCA.2A.120]

Definition: authority

An “authority” is either a body corporate established for a purpose of the Commonwealth by or under a law of either the Commonwealth or a Territory, or an incorporated company in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest, either directly or through a statutory authority: see s 4. In ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519 (White J) the court considered whether the respondent was an “authority of the Crown”. The company was incorporated under the corporation law rather than special legislation, but was the body declared by legislation to promote the egg industry. It received Commonwealth grants for promotion of the industry and for research and development. The legislation provided for ministerial direction to the respondent in limited circumstances, including where the Minister was satisfied that a direction is in Australia’s national interest because of exceptional and urgent circumstances. Many functions performed by the respondent were the same as, or similar to, those of the statutory research and development corporations. Although there were a number of close ties between the respondent and the Australian Government, they were not sufficient to warrant the respondent being characterised as an agent or emanation of the Crown. The term “controlling interest” in s 4 is not defined, but the normal meaning is that the Commonwealth will be regarded as having a controlling interest in a company if it controls the board of the company or holds more than 50% of the voting shares in the company, either directly or through a statutory authority.

62

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2A.160] [CCA.2A.140]

s 2A Land in the Australian Capital Territory

Section 2A(4) specifically exempts from the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Act, but not from the consumer protection provisions or any other operative provisions, any business carried on by the Commonwealth in developing and disposing of land in the Australian Capital Territory. This exemption would appear to be of little current utility because land development and disposal in the Territory is now carried on by the ACT Government, although it continues to apply to land held by the Commonwealth, such as Federal Government buildings. Whether or not the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Act apply to development and disposal of land by the Territory Government is a matter to be determined under s 2B.

[CCA.2A.160] Cases • ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519. The respondent was formed to promote and provide research and development for the egg industry. Although there were a number of close ties between the respondent and the Australian Government, they were not sufficient to warrant the respondent being characterised as an agent or emanation of the Crown. • ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 581; [2005] ATPR 42-066. It was conceded that, in procurement of medical supplies for public hospitals, the relevant procurement authority was not carrying on a business. • Commonwealth v Griffıths [2007] NSWCA 370; (2007) 70 NSWLR 268; 245 ALR 172. The Australian Forensic Drug Laboratory, a Commonwealth analytical laboratory provided an incorrect certificate to the police for prosecution purposes. It was conceded that it was arguable that the laboratory carried on business of supplying certificates, but the court accepted that this was not done in trade or commerce. • Markit Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [2006] QSC 157; [2007] 1 Qd R 253. The Commissioner was not carrying on a business when bringing proceedings for penalties for non-payment of taxes. That activity was governmental in nature. • RP Data Limited v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639. The court found, in a case based on s 46, that the respondent was carrying on a business with respect to the supply of bulk data to licensees. • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. The question for the High Court was whether or not the Authority, a Northern Territory statutory body corporation that sold electricity it generated and transported, had breached s 46 by declining to make transmission facilities available to a competing generator. The court had little difficulty in finding that the Authority was carrying on a business within the meaning of the then TPA. • Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 133; (2004) 134 FCR 422; 208 ALR 98; [2004] ATPR 41-979; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-190. The court found that, in endorsing a noise exposure forecast in relation to the respondent’s airport, Airservices Australia, a statutory authority, was not carrying on a business. • Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2002] FCA 1152; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-226. Sirway brought proceedings for alleged breach of the then TPA when the Department of Defence cancelled a tender contract for the supply of crockery, claiming that the Department had engaged in misleading conduct in cancelling the contract. In response to the proposition that the Act did

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

63

CCA ss 1-6AA

In the Australian Capital Territory prior to self-government, residential land development was undertaken by the Department of Arts, Sport, Environment, Tourism and Territories in conjunction with the National Capital Development Commission. For a case involving proceedings under former TPA Pt V relating to the sale of land in the Australian Capital Territory prior to self-government, see Phillip & Anton Homes Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1988] ATPR 40-838; [1988] ASC 55-635.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2A

[CCA.2A.160]

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

not apply, Sirway asserted that the Commonwealth was carrying on a business of trading or acquiring chinaware in industrial quantities. The argument was rejected. Corrections Corp of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1280; (2000) 104 FCR 448; [2000] ATPR 41-787. The running of detention centres by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs was found not to amount to the Commonwealth carrying on a business and therefore, the Commonwealth was not carrying on business when it called for tenders to run detention centres. Paramedical Services Pty Ltd v The Ambulance Service of New South Wales [1999] FCA 548. The court found that, in relation to the provision of ambulance services at sporting events, the NSW Ambulance Service was carrying on a business. JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175. This case involved a challenge to a tender for the sale of a Commonwealth printing business because a tenderer thought the Commonwealth had engaged in misleading conduct. The court decided that s 2A makes it clear that the Commonwealth is only to be bound by the Act where the conduct complained of takes place in the course of carrying on a business. It did not apply in this case because the conduct claimed to be misleading occurred when the Commonwealth was selling a business, not when it was carrying on the business. Mid Density Development Pty Ltd v Rockdale Municipal Council (1992) 39 FCR 579; [1993] ATPR (Digest) 46-100. The court had to decide whether or not the Council was a corporation for the purposes of the then TPA. Although the court did not consider directly what may or may not be included in the term “a business” the characterisation by the court of various Council activities is informative. Davies J concluded that in charging fees for zoning certificates the Council was performing a statutory duty for which the relevant legislation permitted it to charge a fee, and providing or contracting out garbage collection services was nothing more than carrying out a function of government in the interests of the community. National Management Services (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 9 BCL 190. A dispute arose in relation to the construction of a building in Sydney to provide offices for the Cabinet and Ministers. The development was carried out by the relevant Federal department. McLelland J rejected the proposition that the Commonwealth was engaged in a business in developing the building. Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285. A dispute arose between Fontana and the union over a black ban on Fontana because Fontana did not agree to only employ actors who were members of the union. The matter reached the High Court on a challenge by the union to the validity of s 45D of the then TPA. The statutory context in which the High Court had to consider the meaning of the term “business” was that s 45D(1)(b) dealt with conduct that had the purpose or likely effect of causing substantial loss or damage to Fontana’s “business”. The question was whether s 45D(1)(b) was invalid, given that the term “business” has, depending on the context, a very wide meaning. Referring to prior decisions, the court accepted that the term “business” in s 45D is not restricted to trading activities. Thomson Publications (Aust) Pty Ltd v TPC (1979) 40 FLR 257; 27 ALR 551; [1979] ATPR 40-133. The applicant sought to have set aside terms of settlement reached between various hoteliers and the Trade Practices Commission relating to the circulation of liquor prices. The applicant argued that the implementation of the terms of settlement, in relation to its business of publishing liquor guides, would result in the Trade Practices Commission being involved in a contravention of the provisions of s 45D. The Commission was found not to have been carrying on a business.

See also [CCA.2B.80].

64

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2B.40]

2B

s 2B

Application of Act to States and Territories

(1) [Binding provisions] The following provisions of this Act bind the Crown in right of each of the States, of the Northern Territory and of the Australian Capital Territory, so far as the Crown carries on a business, either directly or by an authority of the State or Territory: (a) Part IV; (aa) Part V; (b) Part XIB; (c) the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to the above provisions. [Subs (1) am Act 83 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1, with effect from 18 Jul 2014; Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 26; Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1; subst Act 58 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1]

(2) [Crown immune to liability] Nothing in this Act renders the Crown in right of a State or Territory liable to a pecuniary penalty or to be prosecuted for an offence. (3) [Liability for State/Territory authorities] The protection in subsection (2) does not apply to an authority of a State or Territory. [S 2B am Act 83 of 2014; Act 111 of 2009; Act 61 of 1999; Act 58 of 1997; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 81]

Background ...................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.20] Summary ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.40] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.60] Concept: Crown in right of a State or Territory ............................................................................... [CCA.2B.80] Definition: business ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.100] Definition: authority ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.2B.120] Application to States as persons ................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.140] Other exemptions .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.2B.160] Cases ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.2B.180] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.2B.200]

[CCA.2B.20]

Background

Until 1996, the then TPA did not apply to the Crown in the right of any of the States, nor did it apply to any instrumentality or any agent of any State: Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1; F Sharkey and Co Pty Ltd v Fisher (1980) 50 FLR 130; 33 ALR 173; [1980] ATPR 40-185; State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 60 FLR 165; 41 ALR 279; [1980] ATPR 40-282; (1982) 1 TPR 326; New South Wales Bar Assn v Forbes Macfie Hansen Pty Ltd (1988) 18 FCR 378; 82 ALR 431; [1988] 40-875. This immunity extends to the Crown in the right of the Northern Territory: Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 18 FCR 212; 76 ALR 173; [1988] ATPR 40-835. However, s 2B changed that position. [CCA.2B.40]

Summary

The Act binds the Crown in the right of a State or the Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory insofar as the Crown carries on a business either directly or through an authority.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

65

CCA ss 1-6AA

SECTION 2B COMMENTARY

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2B

[CCA.2B.40]

A fundamental first question in considering the application of this section is whether or not the entity under consideration is, in fact, part of the Crown. If it is not then the Act will apply to it without reference to this section. The concept “carrying on business” has different meanings in different contexts so determining when the Act will apply to the States and Territories and their authorities is not always a straight-forward issue, especially as s 4 makes it clear that the term “business” includes businesses not carried on for profit. In the context of the Act, the concept involves engaging in, or commencing to engage in, continuous and repetitive activities of a business nature as a going concern. However, a number of specific exceptions are listed in s 2C. For the most part activities listed would seem to be governmental in nature, rather than of a business character. A second point of note is that the Act only applies “insofar as” the States and Territories and their authorities is carrying on a business. It does not necessarily apply to all activities undertaken by the relevant entity. There is a slight difference in wording between s 2A(1) and s 2B(1) but it is of no significance: Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334; 73 ALJR 522; 161 ALR 399; [1999] ATPR 41-682 at 348 (CLR); NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2002] FCAFC 302; (2002) 122 FCR 399; [2003] ATPR 41-909. States and Territories cannot be found liable for pecuniary penalties nor can they be prosecuted (for example for a cartel offence), but this does not extend to their authorities. [CCA.2B.60]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) s 2B be amended to apply the competition provisions of the Act to the States and Territories and their authorities insofar as they undertake activities in trade or commerce, rather than only to the extent that they carry on a business. [CCA.2B.80]

Concept: Crown in right of a State or Territory

In order to determine whether or not a State statutory body is entitled to be treated as being part of the Crown an analysis of the legislation by which it was established and the activities engaged in pursuant to that legislation has to be undertaken. It is necessary to determine, through interpretation of the legislation constituting the body, whether its activities are to be classified as activities of the Crown. In that respect matters such as the nature of the activities of the body and the extent of ministerial control over its activities will be relevant: see Townsville Hospitals Board v Townsville City Council (1982) 149 CLR 282; 56 ALJR 789; 42 ALR 319. In Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1969) 119 CLR 334; 43 ALJR 330; [1970] ALR 241 at 337-338 (CLR), 331 (ALJR), Kitto J said: The decisive question is not whether the activities and functions with which the respondent is endowed are traditionally governmental in character, though their possession of a traditional or generally accepted governmental character may well help in the ascertainment of the legislative intention. The question is rather what intention appears from the provisions relating to the respondent in the relevant statute: is it, on the one hand, an intention that the Commonwealth shall operate in a particular field through a corporation created for the purpose; or is it, on the other hand, an intention to put into the field a corporation to perform its functions independently of the Commonwealth, that is to say otherwise than as a Commonwealth instrument, so that the concept of a Commonwealth activity cannot realistically be applied to that which the corporation does? In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2002] FCAFC 302; (2002) 122 FCR 399; [2003] ATPR 41-909 at [126] (ATPR), Finkelstein J explained the position as follows: If the Crown is able to control the activities of the corporation (whether directly, by instruction or direction, or indirectly, pursuant to a power to remove those in control of its operations otherwise than

66

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2B.140]

s 2B

EXAMPLE • Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment [2010] VSC 389; (2010) 241 FLR 360. The defendant, a corporation established under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic), was found to be part of the Crown. • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. The Authority was held to be part of the Crown but Gasco Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Authority, was not. • E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 27 FCR 310; 99 ALR 601; [1991] ATPR 41-085. The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, a State statutory corporation, was held not to be part of the Crown. • Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1. The Queensland Commissioner of Railways, who operated significant rail services, was held to be part of the Crown. • Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 18 FCR 212; 76 ALR 173; [1988] ATPR 40-835. The Territory Loans Corporation of the Northern Territory was found to be part of the Crown. • State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 60 FLR 165; 41 ALR 279; [1982] ATPR 40-282; (1982) 1 TPR 326. The Board, a Victorian statutory authority, was found to have a level of independence from the Government sufficient to exclude it being regarded as part of the Crown. [CCA.2B.100]

Definition: business

See [CCA.2A.80]. [CCA.2B.120]

Definition: authority

See [CCA.2A.120]. [CCA.2B.140]

Application to States as persons

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that the word “person” includes a body politic unless the legislation evidences a contrary intention. The Act contains a contrary intention insofar as States and Territories carry on business. Section 2B makes it clear that the Act is to apply to: • all persons carrying on business within the State or Territory; • all bodies incorporated or registered under a law of the State or Territory; • persons ordinarily resident in or otherwise connected with the State or Territory; • the government of the State or Territory insofar as it carries on business; and • statutory authorities of the State or Territory insofar as they carry on business. In Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334; 73 ALJR 522; 161 ALR 399; [1999] ATPR 41-682 at [24] (ATPR) the High Court said: It is extremely unlikely that the Commonwealth Parliament intended that s 75B(1) should apply to activities of the State engaged in solely for traditional governmental purposes, particularly when it limited the Act’s application to the Commonwealth to its business activities. And there is no basis for thinking that the word “person” bears different meanings in ss 6(3) and 75B(1). Given these considerations and given, also, that the word “person” in ss 6(3) and 75B(1) does not extend to the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

67

CCA ss 1-6AA

for misconduct or incapacity) the corporation will usually be the alter ego of the Crown. So in every case where the question arises it is necessary to examine the nature and degree of control that the Crown exercises over the corporation. If the corporation is subject to the same control as a governmental department it is likely to be the alter ego of the Crown. If the corporation is largely free of ministerial control then it is unlikely to be the Crown’s alter ego.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2BA

[CCA.2B.140]

Commonwealth, it is to be concluded that the Act evinces an intention that, contrary to s 22(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a State is not a “person” for the purpose of those sections. [CCA.2B.160]

Other exemptions

All States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have a limited right to exclude activities of their statutory authorities from Pt IV of the Act by enacting special legislation for that purpose: see s 51(1)(b), (c) and (d). [CCA.2B.180] Cases • ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 38; (2007) 232 CLR 1; 81 ALJR 1622; 237 ALR 512; [2007] ATPR 42-172. In adopting a practice of lodging bundled tenders for procurement contracts with state health authorities, where the bundle involved conduct that could be regarded as being in breach of s 46 or s 47, the respondent was not entitled to derivative Crown immunity even though the health authorities were not carrying on a business in undertaking the procurements. Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1 overruled. • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. The appellant sought access to the respondent’s electricity transmission and distribution network to enable it to sell its electricity. The respondent refused. The appellant succeeded in establishing that the respondent’s refusal was in the course of its carrying on a business. The respondent was not able to claim exemption under the licence exclusion. • Lin v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2003] FCA 1345. The applicant ran a kiosk on a railway station under a lease from the respondent. When another tenant at the station commenced selling newspapers and magazines in competition with her the applicant brought proceedings against the respondent under former TPA s 51AC (ACL s 22). The court held that, as s 2B did not extend to former TPA Pt IVA, the cause of action was not available. [CCA.2B.200]

Further reading

See Report by the Independent Committee of Enquiry into National Competition Policy (Hilmer Report) (AGPS, August 1993); Dixon, “When are State Government Owned Corporations Caught by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act?” (1996) 4 TPLJ 118. For the cases which defined whether or not the Crown in the right of a State was subject to the Act prior to the enactment of s 2B, see Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1990) 170 CLR 276; 64 ALJR 406; 93 ALR 460; [1990] ATPR 41-033; Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1; Hawthorn Pty Ltd v State Bank of South Australia (1993) 40 FCR 137; 112 ALR 691; [1993] ATPR 41-219; E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 27 FCR 310; 99 ALR 601; [1991] ATPR 41-085; State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1991) 28 FCR 511; 101 ALR 259; 21 IPR 65; [1991] ATPR 41-110; [1991] ASC 56-067; State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 60 FLR 165; 41 ALR 279; [1982] ATPR 40-282; (1982) 1 TPR 326; Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1987) 18 FCR 212; 76 ALR 173; [1988] ATPR 40-835. 2BA

Application of Part IV to local government bodies

(1) [Part IV applies to local government body carrying on business] Part IV applies in relation to a local government body only to the extent that it carries on a business, either directly or by an incorporated company in which it has a controlling interest. (2) [Definition: local government body] In this section:

68

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2BA.40]

s 2C

local government body means a body established by or under a law of a State or Territory for the purposes of local government, other than a body established solely or primarily for the purposes of providing a particular service, such as the supply of electricity or water. [S 2BA insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 10 item 1]

SECTION 2BA COMMENTARY Background ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2BA.20] Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................... [CCA.2BA.40]

[CCA.2BA.20]

Background

Until s 2BA was introduced in 2007, s 2D excluded from the operation of Pt IV activities by local government bodies in granting, suspending, refusing or varying licences issued by that local government body. In 2002 the Productivity Commission recommended that s 2D be repealed and replaced with a section stating explicitly that Pt IV applies to the business activities of local government. [CCA.2BA.40]

Proposals for Change

2C

Activities that are not business

(1) [List of non-commercial activities] For the purposes of sections 2A, 2B and 2BA, the following do not amount to carrying on a business: (a) imposing or collecting: (i) taxes; or (ii) levies; or (iii) fees for licences; (b) granting, refusing to grant, revoking, suspending or varying licences (whether or not they are subject to conditions); (c) a transaction involving: (i) only persons who are all acting for the Crown in the same right (and none of whom is an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory); or (ii) only persons who are all acting for the same authority of the Commonwealth; or (iii) only persons who are all acting for the same authority of a State or Territory; or (iv) only the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and one or more non-commercial authorities of the Commonwealth; or (v) only the Crown in right of a State or Territory and one or more non-commercial authorities of that State or Territory; or (vi) only non-commercial authorities of the Commonwealth; or (vii) only non-commercial authorities of the same State or Territory; or (viii) only persons who are all acting for the same local government body (within the meaning of section 2BA) or for the same incorporated company in which such a body has a controlling interest;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

69

CCA ss 1-6AA

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that s 2BA of the Act be amended to apply the competition provisions of the Act to local Government insofar as it undertakes activities in trade or commerce, rather than only to the extent that they carry on a business.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2C

[CCA.2C.20] (d)

the acquisition of primary products by a government body under legislation, unless the acquisition occurs because: (i) the body chooses to acquire the products; or (ii) the body has not exercised a discretion that it has under the legislation that would allow it not to acquire the products.

[Subs (1) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 10 items 2 and 3]

(2) [Subsection (1) list not exhaustive] Subsection (1) does not limit the things that do not amount to carrying on a business for the purposes of sections 2A, 2B and 2BA. [Subs (2) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 10 item 4]

(3) [Definitions] In this section: acquisition of primary products by a government body under legislation includes vesting of ownership of primary products in a government body by legislation. government body means the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory, an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory. licence means a licence that allows the licensee to supply goods or services. primary products means: (a) agricultural or horticultural produce; or (b) crops, whether on or attached to the land or not; or (c) animals (whether dead or alive); or (d) the bodily produce (including natural increase) of animals. (4) [Non-commercial authorities] For the purposes of this section, an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory is non-commercial if: (a) it is constituted by only one person; and (b) it is neither a trading corporation nor a financial corporation. [S 2C am Act 131 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 81]

SECTION 2C COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.2C.20] Definition: non-commercial authority ............................................................................................... [CCA.2C.40] Licences .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2C.60] Taxes ............................................................................................................................................... [CCA.2C.80] Cases ............................................................................................................................................ [CCA.2C.100]

[CCA.2C.20]

Outline

This section aids in determining when a government will be regarded as carrying on business. It is only when carrying on business that government activities are susceptible to the competition provisions of the Act and, in the case of the Commonwealth, the consumer protection and other provisions. The section makes it clear that a State or Territory will not be regarded as carrying on a business when: • the State or Territory imposes or collects taxes, levies, fees or licences; • the State or Territory grants, revokes or takes other action in relation to licences; • the State or Territory enters transactions the only parties to which are the Crown in the right of the particular State or Territory (not being a State or Territory commercial authority); • only non-commercial authorities of the particular State or Territory enter transactions;

70

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.2C.100]

s 2C

• a government body acquires primary products under legislation unless the government body has a discretion about whether or not to make the acquisition. [CCA.2C.40]

Definition: non-commercial authority

An authority will be regarded as a non-commercial authority only if it is constituted by only one person and is neither a trading corporation nor a financial corporation: s 2C(4). For definitions of the terms “financial corporation” and “trading corporation” see [CCA.4.260] and [CCA.4.560] respectively. [CCA.2C.60]

Licences

Section 2B makes it clear that the mere granting, refusing to grant, revoking, suspending or varying of licences will not be regarded as carrying on business. However, if the activities of the authority include granting licences; the authority may be found to be carrying on a business by reason of its other activities: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [100] (ATPR).

[CCA.2C.80]

Taxes

Section 2C states that imposing and collecting taxes does not amount to carrying on a business. The term “collecting taxes” is not limited to issuing notices of assessment and the receipt of moneys paid in response to an assessment or to demands made after the taxpayer’s failure to pay by the due date. Recourse to legal proceedings for the recovery of taxes due is a part of the collection of taxes. The character of the activities is not changed because the process of collection is rendered more complex and indirect through a taxpayer’s failure to pay: Markit Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [2006] QSC 157; [2007] 1 Qd R 253 (Muir J); Bride v The Shire of Katanning [2016] FCA 65 (McKerracher J). However, proceedings to recover penalties are in a different category because a penalty is not a tax: Markit Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [2006] QSC 157; [2007] 1 Qd R 253 (Muir J) applying Woodhams v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1998] 4 VR 309 at 321, 322. [CCA.2C.100] Cases • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. The refusal by the respondent to provide electricity transmission and distribution services to the appellant was found to have been engaged in by the Authority in carrying on business within s 2C. The respondent was not able to claim exemption under the licence exclusion. • NSW v RT & YE Falls Investments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 54; (2003) 57 NSWLR 1; [2003] ASAL 55-107. The NSW Department of Agriculture for statements made to a cattle owner in the course of a campaign to eradicate a bovine disease by testing and destroying affected cattle. • Corrections Corp of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1280; (2000) 104 FCR 448; [2000] ATPR 41-787. The running of detention centres by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was found not to amount to the Commonwealth carrying on a business and therefore the Commonwealth was not carrying on business when it called for tenders to run detention centres.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

71

CCA ss 1-6AA

The term “licence” refers to an entitlement to undertake some activity which would otherwise be unlawful as, for example, an entry upon a person’s land, or the infringement of a patent or copyright. It is an authority to do something which would otherwise be wrongful or illegal or inoperative: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v United Aircraft Corp (1943) 68 CLR 525; [1944] ALR 23 at 533 (CLR); NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [101] (ATPR).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2D

[CCA.2C.100] • FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Workcover Corp of SA [1998] ATPR 41-639. The respondent sought to strike out a statement of claim on the basis that it was not susceptible to the Act because its function was to collect taxes. The court refused the application. • JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 77 FCR 337; 147 ALR 419; [1997] ATPR (Digest) 46-175. The Commonwealth was found not to be engaging in a business when it issued a tender for the outsourcing of the role of the Australian Government Publishing Service.

2D

Exemption of certain activities of local government bodies from Part IV [Repealed]

[S 2D rep Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 10 item 5; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 81]

3

Repeal The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1972 are repealed.

4

Interpretation

(1) [Definitions] In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: acquire includes: (a) in relation to goods—acquire by way of purchase, exchange or taking on lease, on hire or on hire-purchase; and (b) in relation to services—accept. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

AEMC or Australian Energy Market Commission means the body established by section 5 of the Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004 of South Australia. [Def insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

AER or Australian Energy Regulator means the body established by section 44AE. [Def insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

AER Chair means the Chair of the AER. [Def insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

AER member means a member of the AER. [Def insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5]

arrive at, in relation to an understanding, includes reach or enter into. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Australian Consumer Law means Schedule 2 as applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI. [Def subst Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 3, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

authorisation means: (a) an authorisation under Division 1 of Part VII granted by the Commission or by the Tribunal on a review of a determination of the Commission; or (b) an authorisation under Division 3 of Part VII granted by the Tribunal. [Def insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1]

authority, in relation to a State or Territory (including an external Territory), means: (a) a body corporate established for a purpose of the State or the Territory by or under a law of the State or Territory; or

72

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4 (b)

an incorporated company in which the State or the Territory, or a body corporate referred to in paragraph (a), has a controlling interest.

[Def insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 4]

authority of the Commonwealth means: (a) a body corporate established for a purpose of the Commonwealth by or under a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a Territory; or (b) an incorporated company in which the Commonwealth, or a body corporate referred to in paragraph (a), has a controlling interest. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

authorization [Repealed] [Def rep Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

banker includes, but is not limited to, a body corporate that is an ADI (authorised deposit-taking institution) for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959. [Def insrt Act 48 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 194]

business includes a business not carried on for profit. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

cartel provision has the meaning given by section 44ZZRD. [Def insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

[Def rep Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Commission. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

clearance means a clearance under Division 3 of Part VII granted by the Commission or by the Tribunal on a review of a determination of the Commission. [Def insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

commencing date [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 4, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Commission means the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission established by section 6A, and includes a member of the Commission or a Division of the Commission performing functions of the Commission. [Def am Act 88 of 1995, s 36; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Companies Ordinance [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

competition includes competition from imported goods or from services rendered by persons not resident or not carrying on business in Australia. Competition Principles Agreement means the Competition Principles Agreement made on 11 April 1995 between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, being that agreement as in force from time to time. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 4]

conduct [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

73

CCA ss 1-6AA

Chairman [Repealed]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 Conduct Code Agreement means the Conduct Code Agreement made on 11 April 1995 between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, being that agreement as in force from time to time. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 4]

consumer contract [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 5, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 27]

corporation means a body corporate that: (a) is a foreign corporation; (b) is a trading corporation formed within the limits of Australia or is a financial corporation so formed; (c) is incorporated in a Territory; or (d) is the holding company of a body corporate of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). Council means the National Competition Council established by section 29A. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Councillor means a member of the Council, including the Council President. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Council President means the Council President referred to in subsection 29C(1). [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Court [Repealed] [Def rep Act 8 of 1988, s 41; am Act 157 of 1976, s 3 and Sch; subst Act 88 of 1976, s 3]

covenant means a covenant (including a promise not under seal) annexed to or running with an estate or interest in land (whether at law or in equity and whether or not for the benefit of other land), and proposed covenant has a corresponding meaning. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

debenture includes debenture stock, bonds, notes and any other document evidencing or acknowledging indebtedness of a body corporate, whether constituting a charge on property of the body corporate or not. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Deputy Chairman [Repealed] [Def rep Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Deputy Chairperson means a Deputy Chairperson of the Commission. [Def am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

Deputy President means a Deputy President of the Tribunal, and includes a person appointed to act as a Deputy President of the Tribunal. Deputy Registrar means a Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal. [Def am Act 206 of 1978, s 3]

designated Commonwealth energy law means: (a) the National Electricity (Commonwealth) Law and Regulations (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or (b) the National Gas (Commonwealth) Law and Regulations (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or

74

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4 (c)

the Offshore Western Australian Pipelines (Commonwealth) Law and Regulations (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or (d) the National Energy Retail Law and Regulations (Commonwealth) (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004). [Def am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 58]

document means any record of information, and includes: (a) anything on which there is writing; and (b) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and (c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; and (d) a map, plan, drawing or photograph. [Def subst Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 409, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

dual listed company arrangement has the same meaning as in section 125-60 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. [Def insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 1]

electronic communication means a communication of information by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy: (a) whether in the form of text; or (b) whether in the form of data; or (c) whether in the form of speech, music or other sounds; or (d) whether in the form of visual images (animated or otherwise); or (e) whether in any other form; or (f) whether in any combination of forms. [Def insrt Act 9 of 2016, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1, with effect from 25 Feb 2016]

engage in conduct [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Family Court Judge [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 6A, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 8 of 1988, s 41]

Federal Circuit Court means the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. [Def am Act 13 of 2013, s 3 and Sch 1 item 87, with effect from 12 Apr 2013]

financial corporation means a financial corporation within the meaning of paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution and includes a body corporate that carries on as its sole or principal business the business of banking (other than State banking not extending beyond the limits of the State concerned) or insurance (other than State insurance not extending beyond the limits of the State concerned). [Def subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

75

CCA ss 1-6AA

enforcement proceeding [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 6, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 13]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 financial product [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 7, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 550; insrt Act 48 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 2 item 24]

financial service [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 8, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 551; insrt Act 48 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 2 item 24]

foreign corporation means a foreign corporation within the meaning of paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution and includes a body corporate that is incorporated in an external Territory. fully-participating jurisdiction means a State or Territory that: (a) is a participating jurisdiction as defined in section 150A; and (b) is not named in a notice in operation under section 150K. [Def insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 82]

full-time member of the Commission [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

give effect to, in relation to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, includes do an act or thing in pursuance of or in accordance with or enforce or purport to enforce. [Def am Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

goods includes: (a) (b) (c) (d)

ships, aircraft and other vehicles; animals, including fish; minerals, trees and crops, whether on, under or attached to land or not; and gas and electricity.

infringement notice [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 9, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 21]

infringement notice compliance period [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 10, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 22]

infringement notice provision [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 11, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 23]

local energy instrument means a regulation, rule, order, declaration or other instrument if: (a) the instrument is made or has effect under a law of a State or Territory; and (b) the law of the State or Territory applies a uniform energy law as a law of its own jurisdiction. [Def insrt Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 3, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

market [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

meeting [Repealed] [Def rep Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

member of the Commission includes the Chairperson and a person appointed to act as a member of the Commission but does not include an associate member of the Commission. [Def am Act 88 of 1995, s 36; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

76

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4 member of the Tribunal includes the President and a person appointed to act as a member of the Tribunal. New Zealand Commerce Commission means the Commission established by section 8 of the Commerce Act 1986 of New Zealand. [Def insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 4]

New Zealand Crown corporation means a body corporate that is an instrument of the Crown in respect of the Government of New Zealand. [Def insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 4]

non-party consumer [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 12, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; subst Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 29; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 14]

organisation of employees means an organisation that exists or is carried on for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of furthering the interests of its members in relation to their employment. [Def insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 14]

person [Repealed] personal injury includes: (a) pre-natal injury; or (b) impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition; or (c) disease; but does not include an impairment of a person’s mental condition unless the impairment consists of a recognised psychiatric illness. [Def subst Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 13, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 113 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1]

practice of exclusive dealing means the practice of exclusive dealing referred to in subsection 47(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9). [Def subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

practice of resale price maintenance means the practice of resale price maintenance referred to in Part VIII. President means the President of the Tribunal and includes a person appointed to act as President of the Tribunal. presidential member or presidential member of the Tribunal means the President or a Deputy President. price includes a charge of any description. provision, in relation to an understanding, means any matter forming part of the understanding. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

provision [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 14, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

registered charity means an entity that is registered under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 as the type of entity mentioned in column 1 of item 1 of the table in subsection 25-5(5) of that Act. [Def insrt Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 item 160, with effect from 3 Dec 2012]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

77

CCA ss 1-6AA

[Def rep Act 88 of 1976, s 3]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 Registrar means the Registrar of the Tribunal. [Def am Act 206 of 1978, s 3]

rely on [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 15, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 31]

require, in relation to the giving of a covenant, means require or demand the giving of a covenant, whether by way of making a contract containing the covenant or otherwise, and whether or not a covenant is given in pursuance of the requirement or demand. [Def insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

send includes deliver, and sent and sender have corresponding meanings. services includes any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under: (a) a contract for or in relation to: (i) the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods; (ii) the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction; or (iii) the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction; (b) a contract of insurance; (c) a contract between a banker and a customer of the banker entered into in the course of the carrying on by the banker of the business of banking; or (d) any contract for or in relation to the lending of moneys; but does not include rights or benefits being the supply of goods or the performance of work under a contract of service. [Def subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

share includes stock. [Def subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

South Australian Electricity Legislation means: (a) the National Electricity Law set out in the Schedule to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 of South Australia as in force from time to time; and (b) any regulations, as in force from time to time, made under Part 4 of that Act. The reference in paragraph (a) to the National Electricity Law set out in the Schedule to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 of South Australia as in force from time to time includes a reference to any Rules or other instruments, as in force from time to time, made or having effect under that Law. [Def insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 59]

South Australian Energy Retail Legislation means: (a) the National Energy Retail Law set out in the Schedule to the National Energy Retail Law (South Australia) Act 2011 of South Australia, as amended from time to time; and (b) any regulations, as amended from time to time, made under Part 11 of the National Energy Retail Law. The reference in paragraph (a) to the National Energy Retail Law set out in the Schedule to

78

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4 the National Energy Retail Law (South Australia) Act 2011 of South Australia, as amended from time to time, includes a reference to any Rules or other instruments, as amended from time to time, made or having effect under that Law. [Def insrt Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 4, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

South Australian Gas Legislation means: (a) the National Gas Law set out in the Schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia as in force from time to time; and (b) any regulations, as in force from time to time, made under Part 3 of that Act. The reference in paragraph (a) to the National Gas Law set out in the Schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia as in force from time to time includes a reference to any Rules or other instruments, as in force from time to time, made or having effect under that Law. [Def am Act 60 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 4 item 1; insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 60]

special price [Repealed] [Def rep Act 17 of 1986, s 4]

State/Territory AER member means an AER member referred to in section 44AP. State/Territory energy law means any of the following laws: (a) a uniform energy law that applies as a law of a State or Territory; (b) a law of a State or Territory that applies a law mentioned in paragraph (a) as a law of its own jurisdiction; (c) any other provisions of a law of a State or Territory that: (i) relate to energy; and (ii) are prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; being those provisions as in force from time to time. [Def insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 61]

substantiation notice [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 16, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 10]

substantiation notice compliance period [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 17, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 11]

supply, when used as a verb, includes: (a) in relation to goods—supply (including re-supply) by way of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire-purchase; and (b) in relation to services—provide, grant or confer; and, when used as a noun, has a corresponding meaning, and supplied and supplier have corresponding meanings. Telstra has the same meaning as in the Telstra Corporation Act 1991. [Def insrt Act 140 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 32, with effect from 1 Jan 2011]

Territory means: (a) an internal Territory; or (b) the Territory of Christmas Island; or (c) the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. [Def subst Act 104 of 1992, s 24 and Sch 4]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

79

CCA ss 1-6AA

[Def insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 the Court or the Federal Court means the Federal Court of Australia. [Def insrt Act 8 of 1988, s 41]

the Family Court means the Family Court of Australia. [Def insrt Act 8 of 1988, s 41]

this Act includes Schedule 2 to the extent that it is applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI. [Def insrt Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 18, with effect from 1 Jan 2011]

trade or commerce means trade or commerce within Australia or between Australia and places outside Australia. trading corporation means a trading corporation within the meaning of paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution. Tribunal means the Australian Competition Tribunal, and includes a member of that Tribunal or a Division of that Tribunal performing functions of that Tribunal. [Def am Act 88 of 1995, s 36]

unfair [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 19, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 32]

uniform energy (a) (b) (c) (ca) (d)

law means: the South Australian Electricity Legislation; or the South Australian Gas Legislation; or the Western Australian Gas Legislation; or the South Australian Energy Retail Legislation; or provisions of a law of a State or Territory that: (i) relate to energy; and (ii) are prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph; being those provisions as in force from time to time.

[Def am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 5, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 62]

unsolicited goods [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 20, with effect from 1 Jan 2011]

unsolicited services [Repealed] [Def rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 21, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Western Australian Gas Legislation means: (a) the National Gas Access (Western Australia) Law (within the meaning of the National Gas Access (WA) Act 2009 of Western Australia) as in force from time to time; and (b) any regulations, as in force from time to time, made under Part 3 of that Act. The reference in paragraph (a) to the National Gas Access (Western Australia) Law (within the meaning of the National Gas Access (WA) Act 2009 of Western Australia) as in force from time to time includes a reference to any Rules or other instruments, as in force from time to time, made or having effect under that Law. [Def am Act 17 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 12; Act 60 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 4 item 2; insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 63]

(2) [References to certain actions] In this Act:

80

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4 (a)

a reference to engaging in conduct shall be read as a reference to doing or refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, an understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant; (b) a reference to conduct, when that expression is used as a noun otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be read as a reference to the doing of or the refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, an understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant; (c) a reference to refusing to do an act includes a reference to: (i) refraining (otherwise than inadvertently) from doing that act; or (ii) making it known that that act will not be done; and (d) a reference to a person offering to do an act, or to do an act on a particular condition, includes a reference to the person making it known that the person will accept applications, offers or proposals for the person to do that act or to do that act on that condition, as the case may be. (3) [Effect of Act on contracts] Where a provision of this Act is expressed to render a provision of a contract, or to render a covenant, unenforceable if the provision of the contract or the covenant has or is likely to have a particular effect, that provision of this Act applies in relation to the provision of the contract or the covenant at any time when the provision of the contract or the covenant has or is likely to have that effect notwithstanding that: (a) at an earlier time the provision of the contract or the covenant did not have that effect or was not regarded as likely to have that effect; or (b) the provision of the contract or the covenant will not or may not have that effect at a later time. [Subs (3) subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

(4) [Reference to an acquisition] In this Act: (a) a reference to the acquisition of shares in the capital of a body corporate shall be construed as a reference to an acquisition, whether alone or jointly with another person, of any legal or equitable interest in such shares; and (b) a reference to the acquisition of assets of a person shall be construed as a reference to an acquisition, whether alone or jointly with another person, of any legal or equitable interest in such assets but does not include a reference to an acquisition by way of charge only or an acquisition in the ordinary course of business. [Subs (4) am Act 222 of 1992, s 2; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 17 of 1986, s 4; insrt Act 88 of 1976, s 3] [S 4 am Act 9 of 2016; Act 13 of 2013; Act 169 of 2012; Act 119 of 2011; Act 46 of 2011; Act 140 of 2010; Act 103 of 2010; Act 44 of 2010; Act 59 of 2009; Act 17 of 2009; Act 60 of 2008; Act 159 of 2007; Act 45 of 2007; Act 131 of 2006; Act 113 of 2004; Act 108 of 2004; Act 55 of 2001; Act 48 of 1998; Act 60 of 1996; Act 88 of 1995; Act 222 of 1992; Act 104 of 1992; Act 70 of 1990; Act 8 of 1988; Act 17 of 1986; Act 206 of 1978; Act 81 of 1977; Act 157 of 1976; Act 88 of 1976 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 7A prescribes laws for the purposes of subpara (c)(ii) of the definition of State/Territory energy law in s 4 including: • ACT: Pts 5 and 6 of the National Energy Retail Law (ACT) Act 2012 and accompanying regulations; • NSW: Pts 2, 3 and 4 of, and Sch 1 to, the National Energy Retail Law (Adoption) Act 2012 and accompanying regulations;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

81

CCA ss 1-6AA

[Subs (2) subst Act 81 of 1977, s 5]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.20]

• NT: Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act and accompanying instruments; Pts 2, 3 and 4 of, and Sch 1 to, the National Electricity (Northern Territory) (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2015 and accompanying regulations; • Qld: Pts 2, 3 and 4 of the Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Act 1997 and accompanying regulations; Pts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of, and Sch to, the National Energy Retail Law (Queensland) Act 2012 and accompanying regulations; Pts 2, 3 and 4 of the National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008 and accompanying regulations; • SA: Pts 5, 6 and 7 of the National Energy Retail Law (South Australia) Act 2011 and accompanying regulations; • Tas: Div 7 of Pt 2 of the Tasmanian Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995; Pts 3, 4 and 5 of the National Energy Retail Law (Tasmania) Act 2012 and accompanying regulations; • Vic: Pts 3 and 4 of the Gas Industry Act 2001; Pts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of, and Schs 2 and 3 to, the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 and accompanying regulations and orders; Pt 5 of the National Gas (Victoria) Act 2008 and accompanying regulations and orders; and • WA: s 15 of the Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) Act 1998.]

SECTION 4 COMMENTARY Definition: acquire .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4.20] Definitions: acquisitions of shares or assets ..................................................................................... [CCA.4.40] Definitions: authority of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory ...................................................... [CCA.4.60] Definition: authorisation ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.80] Definition: business .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.100] Definition: clearance ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.4.120] Definition: competition ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.140] Definition: conduct ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.160] Definition: corporation ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.180] Definition: document ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.4.200] Concept: effect – relevant time for considering ............................................................................... [CCA.4.220] Definition: engage in conduct .......................................................................................................... [CCA.4.240] Definition: financial corporation ........................................................................................................ [CCA.4.260] Definition: foreign corporations ........................................................................................................ [CCA.4.280] Definition: fully participating jurisdiction ........................................................................................... [CCA.4.300] Definition: give effect to ................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.320] Definition: goods .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4.340] Definition: member of the Commission ............................................................................................ [CCA.4.360] Concept: offering to do an act ......................................................................................................... [CCA.4.380] Definition: organisation of employees .............................................................................................. [CCA.4.400] Definition: price ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.4.420] Definition: provision .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.440] Concept: refusing to do an act ........................................................................................................ [CCA.4.460] Definition: send ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.4.480] Definition: services ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.4.500] Definition: supply .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4.520] Definition: trade or commerce .......................................................................................................... [CCA.4.540] Definition: trading corporation .......................................................................................................... [CCA.4.560]

[CCA.4.20]

Definition: acquire

This definition makes it clear that the term “acquire” is not limited to acquisition by way of purchase. It is relevant to s 47 (exclusive dealing) and s 50 (mergers). The definition is expanded in its operation by s 4C. See also ACL s 2(1).

82

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.80] [CCA.4.40]

s4 Definitions: acquisitions of shares or assets

This term is dealt with in s 4(4), but needs to be read in conjunction with the definition “acquire” in s 4(1) and ACL s 2(1) and compared with the reference to “acquisition of goods” and “acquisition of services” in s 4C. Section 4(4) makes it clear that, for the purpose of determining whether an acquisition has taken place which brings the merger provisions (s 50) into operation, the following are relevant: • joint acquisitions of shares or assets; and • acquisitions of equitable as well as legal interests in shares or assets. On the other hand, in relation to acquisitions of assets, an acquisition by way of a charge and an acquisition in the ordinary course of business are not acquisitions to which s 50 will apply. As the creation of an option over shares creates an equitable interest in those shares, the granting of an option involves an acquisition pursuant to s 4(4): TPC v Arnotts Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 657; 16 IPR 417; [1990] ATPR 41-062. See also Lipton, “The Meaning of ‘Acquire’ in Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act and its Impact on Secured Financing Transactions” (1993) 21 ABLR 353. [CCA.4.60]

Definitions: authority of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory

These definitions are relevant to ss 2A and 2B which apply the provisions of the Act to the Commonwealth, States and Territories and their authorities.

The term “body corporate” is not defined in the Act. It includes a class of corporations which is wider than those included in the definition of “corporation” in the Act: R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 at 241 (CLR). Clearly, it covers statutory corporations, including both corporations sole and corporations aggregate. The definition only applies to incorporated companies to the extent that the Commonwealth has a controlling interest. The term “controlling interest” is not defined. The normal meaning is that the Commonwealth will be regarded as having a controlling interest in a company if it controls the board of the company or holds more than 50% of the voting shares in the company, directly or through a statutory authority. [CCA.4.80]

Definition: authorisation

An authorisation is an immunity granted by the ACCC permitting a corporation to enter into, or continue with, a contract arrangement, understanding or practice which may otherwise, because of its anti-competitive effect, be in breach of the Act. Authorisations are granted pursuant to Pt VII, Div 1 (ss 88 to 91) and Pt VII, Div 3 (ss 95AT to 95AZM). An authorisation may only be granted if applied for by or on behalf of a party to the contract, arrangement, understanding or practice for which immunity is sought. An applicant for an authorisation must prove that the subject matter of the application would, or would be likely to, result in a benefit to the public, and in all the circumstances the benefits to the public would be likely to outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition: ss 90(6) and (7), 95AZH. The words “on a review” contained in the definition of authorisation are not intended to limit the authority of the Tribunal. They include “in the course of a review” as well as “following a review”: Re Queensland Timber Board (1975) 24 FLR 205; 5 ALR 501; [1975] ATPR 40-005 at 207 (FLR).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

83

CCA ss 1-6AA

The definitions cover both bodies corporate established by the Commonwealth, State or Territory and incorporated companies in which the Commonwealth, a State or Territory has a controlling interest.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 [CCA.4.100]

[CCA.4.100] Definition: business

This definition overcomes an argument that Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities, while they trade, might have been said not to carry on business because they do not trade with a view to profit. However, the definition does not actually establish what the term “carrying on business” means. Section 2C assists to some extent by setting out what will not amount to carrying on business for the purposes of ss 2A and 2B. Whether or not a business is being carried on is a question of fact normally determined by reference to the continuity and repetitiveness of the activities said to amount to carrying on business: Blockey v FCT (1932) 31 CLR 503; 29 ALR 79; Smith v Capewell (1979) 142 CLR 509; 53 ALJR 725; 26 ALR 507; Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; 54 ALJR 345; 29 ALR 577; 12 ATR 231. In Fasold v Roberts (1997) 70 FCR 489; 145 ALR 548; 38 IPR 34; [1997] ATPR 41-561; [1997] AIPC 91-327 at 524 (FCR), 43,775 (ATPR), Sackville J said: [G]enerally speaking, the word “business” as used in the Fair Trading Acts, bears the dictionary meaning of “trade, commercial transactions or engagement”. However, that will not always carry the matter very far. I think that in addition, ordinarily at least, the concept of “business” imports, as Barwick CJ suggested in Hungier v Grace, a notion of system, repetition and continuity … [I]n general, for an undertaking to constitute a business it will have to be conducted with some degree of system and regularity. However, mere repetitiveness is not sufficient to constitute carrying on a business. Absence of a system and regularity might mean that a business is not being carried on but their presence does not necessarily establish that a business is being carried on: Hungier v Grace (1972) 127 CLR 210; 46 ALJR 492; [1972-73] ALR 759 at 217 (CLR) per Barwick CJ. [CCA.4.120] Definition: clearance A clearance is a formal determination by the ACCC or the Tribunal permitting a merger to proceed without risk of breaching the Act. A party to a proposed merger may apply to the ACCC for a clearance. The ACCC may grant a clearance if it determines that the merger would not be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market in Australia. If the ACCC declines to grant a clearance (or does so subject to conditions) the applicant may seek review by the Tribunal: ss 95AC to 95AS. [CCA.4.140]

Definition: competition

Proposal for change On 5 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that the definition of the term “competition” be amended. The exposure draft proposes substitution of the following definition: competition includes: (a) competition from goods that are, or are capable of being, imported into Australia; and (b) competition from services that are rendered, or are capable of being rendered, in Australia by persons not resident or not carrying on business in Australia. Proposed s 180 is to provide that the repeal and substitution of the definition of the term “competition” will apply in relation to conduct engaged in, on or after the commencement of that amendment. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. The meaning of the term “competition” is of fundamental importance in relation to most of the provisions of Pt IV. Yet, for all of its importance, the term is not defined in the Act. The definition does no more than make it clear that competition from imports and from overseas service providers is to be taken into account. 84

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.140]

s4

The term is central to a number of the Act’s provisions. Section 45 deals with contracts, arrangements and understandings affecting “competition”, s 46 deals with the use of market power for the purpose of damaging a “competitor” or preventing “competitive conduct”, s 47 deals with exclusive dealing conduct which substantially lessens “competition” and s 50 prohibits mergers which substantially lessen competition. The courts have adopted and applied the following formulation by the Trade Practices Tribunal in Re Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 225; [1995] ATPR 41-438; Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 at 187-188 (FLR), 17,245 (ATPR): “Competition” is such a very rich concept (containing within it numbers of ideas) that we should not wish to attempt any final definition which might, in some market settings, prove misleading or which might, in respect of some future application, be unduly restrictive. Instead we explore some of the connotations of the term. Competition may be valued for many reasons as serving economic, social and political goals. But in identifying the existence of competition in particular industries or markets, we must focus upon its economic role as a device for controlling the disposition of society’s resources. Thus we think of competition as a mechanism for discovery of market information and for enforcement of business decisions in the light of this information. It is a mechanism, first, for firms discovering the kinds of goods and services the community wants and the manner in which these may be supplied in the cheapest possible way. Prices and profits are the signals which register the play of these forces of demand and supply. At the same time, competition is a mechanism of enforcement: firms disregard these signals at their peril, being fully aware that there are other firms, whether currently in existence or as yet unborn, which would be only too willing to encroach upon their market share and ultimately supplant them. This does not mean that we view competition as a series of passive, mechanical responses to “impersonal market forces”. There is of course a creative role for firms in devising the new product, the new technology, the more effective service or improved cost efficiency. And there are opportunities and rewards as well as punishments. Competition is a dynamic process; but that process is generated by the market pressure from alternative sources of supply and the desire to keep ahead.… Competition expresses itself as rivalrous market behaviour. In our view effective competition requires both that prices should be flexible, reflecting the forces of demand and supply, and that there should be independent rivalry in all dimensions of the price-product-service packages offered to consumers and customers. Competition is a process rather than a situation. Nevertheless, whether firms compete is very much a matter of the structure of the markets in which they operate. The Tribunal also quoted the following from the 1955 United States Attorney General’s National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws report: The basic characteristic of effective competition in the economic sense is that no one seller, and no group of sellers acting in concert, has the power to choose its level of profits by giving less and charging more. Where there is workable competition, rival sellers, whether existing competitors or new potential entrants into the field, would keep this power in check by offering or threatening to offer effective inducements … The antithesis of competition is undue market power - the power to raise price and exclude entry, whether or not exercised. Where there is significant market power the firm (or group of firms acting in concert) is sufficiently free from market pressures to “administer” its own production and selling policies at its discretion: Re Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 225; [1995] ATPR 41-438; Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

85

CCA ss 1-6AA

It has been left to the courts, applying well-established principles of economics, to define the term.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.140]

The word “competition” is used in the Act in a commercial or economic sense. In order to have competition in a market, there must be substitution between one product and another and between one source of supply and another in response to changing prices or the quality of the product to be supplied: Adamson v West Perth Football Club (1979) 39 FLR 199; 27 ALR 475; [1976] ATPR 40-134 at 224 (FLR). The term “competition” refers to a process or state of affairs in the market. As the Full Court said in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC (2003) 131 FCR 529; [2003] ATPR 41-947; [2003] FCAFC 193: Competition is a process and the effect upon competition is not to be equated with the effect upon competitors, although the latter may be relevant to the former. Competition is a means to the end of protecting the interests of consumers rather than competitors in the market … The Court has to make a qualitative judgment about the impact of the impugned conduct on the competitive process. As a practical matter, the views and practices of those in an industry can often be most instructive on the question of assessing the quality of particular competitive conduct in relation to the level of competition and the impact of its cessation: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 53; 203 ALR 217; 78 ALJR 274; [2003] HCA 75. In considering the effect of conduct on competition a detailed analysis of the market, the state of competition therein and the likely effect of the conduct in question on competition in the market must be considered: Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120; 44 ALR 667; [1982] ATPR 40-327 at 124 (FLR). [CCA.4.160]

Definition: conduct

Section 4(2) defined the terms “conduct” and “engaging in conduct” primarily for the purposes of s 45D (secondary boycotts), s 47 (exclusive dealing) and the ACL. The term “conduct” means the doing or refusing to do any act, making a contract or arrangement giving effect to a provision of a contract or arrangement, arriving at an arrangement, giving effect to a provision of an understanding, and giving or acquiring a covenant. The term “engaging in conduct” has the same meaning as the term “conduct”. It follows that, in order to come within the definition the omission to act in a particular way must be deliberate because the subsection uses the terms “refuse” and “refrain”: Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477; 68 ALR 77; 6 IPR 607; [1986] ATPR (Digest) 46-010. In Re Tooth & Co Ltd; Re Tooheys (1977) TPRS 203.131 at 203.133, the Tribunal pointed out that an effect of s 4(2)(a), (c) is that to refrain (otherwise than inadvertently) from doing an act, or to make it known that the act will not be done, is to refuse to do that act, and to refuse to do an act is to engage in conduct. The effect of s 4(2)(a) is to make warranties contained in contracts “conduct” for the purposes of the Act, with the consequent effect that, if false or misleading, the warranties will breach ACL s 18: Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 470; 114 ALR 355; 27 IPR 133; [1993] ATPR 41-269. The term “conduct” is not, however, widely enough defined to include the making of admissions by an officer of a corporation: TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 at 18 (FCR). [CCA.4.180]

Definition: corporation

The Act relies for its validity on a number of specific Commonwealth heads of power, the main one being the corporations power. Accordingly, the term “corporation” is defined with reference to para 51(xx) of the Constitution: see also the definitions of the terms “foreign corporation”, “trading corporation” and “financial corporation” in this section. The definition of the term “corporation” includes in para (d) a body corporate that is the holding company of “a body corporate of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c)”. To the extent that the Act purports

86

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.260]

s4

to apply to such corporations it is ultra vires, because the holding companies referred to are outside ss 51(xx) and 122 of the Constitution: Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285. [CCA.4.200] Definition: document This definition is of particular relevance to the powers of the ACCC to demand production of documents pursuant to s 155. The definition appears broad enough to cover everything on which information is written or printed. It also includes discs, tapes and other “devices” from which sounds or messages are capable of being reproduced. This seems wide enough to cover audio and videocassettes, and may include information stored in computer memory where a special additional programme is required to render the information intelligible.

[CCA.4.240] Definition: engage in conduct See [CCA.4.160]. [CCA.4.260] Definition: financial corporation This definition provides a necessary nexus between the Act and the corporations power upon which the Act is substantially founded. The definition closely follows s 51(xx) of the Constitution, but adds reference to certain bodies corporate carrying on banking or insurance business, thereby also relying on ss 51(xiii) and 51(xiv) of the Constitution. The meaning of the term “financial corporation” was considered by the Federal Court in State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 60 FLR 165; 41 ALR 279; [1982] ATPR 40-282; (1982) 1 TPR 326 at 174 (FLR). Northrop J said: [T]he essential feature which denotes a corporation being a financial corporation is that it performs the function or engages in the activity of dealing in finance in the sense expressed by Deane J in Ku-ring-gai. It is not necessary that a corporation acquires capital for the purpose of lending money nor is it necessary that the corporation borrows money for the purpose of lending. In Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094 at 158 (FLR) Deane J said: The phrases “trading corporation” and “financial corporation” in the context of both s 51(xx) of the Constitution and the definition of “corporation” in the Act are composite ones. Each phrase refers to a corporation which can appropriately be categorised by reference to activity whether actual or intended. The fact that a corporation was formed for the purposes or with objectives that might legitimately be advanced through trading, or that it in fact trades, will not necessarily mean that it can be appropriately categorised as a trading corporation. Nor can the fact that a corporation was formed for the purposes or with objectives that might legitimately be advanced by involvement in financial transactions or that it occasionally has dealings in finance necessarily mean that it can appropriately be categorised as a financial corporation. Trading activity or dealing in finance (whether actual or intended) will be decisive of characterisation only where the overall circumstances are such that the corporation can appropriately be categorised by reference to such activity.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

87

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4.220] Concept: effect – relevant time for considering Section 4(3) deals with the relevant time for assessing the effect of provisions in contracts, arrangements and understandings to which s 45 applies, and covenants to which s 5B applies. It allows the question of unenforceability to be considered at any time, regardless of whether the relevant provision had an adverse effect on competition previously or may not have that effect in the future. Section 4(3) injects a notion of floating unenforceability into contracts, arrangements, understandings and covenants to which it relates. At some stages the effect of a provision may be such that the relevant section declares the contract, arrangement, understanding or covenant unenforceable and at others it may have no effect on competition and therefore be quite enforceable.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.260]

… The phrase “financial corporation” is a composite one. It does not refer to solvency. An obvious reference point is to the activity of commercial dealing in finance. Another possible reference point is the provision of management or advisory services in relation to financial matters. I used the words “dealing in finance”, for want of a better expression, to refer to transactions in which the subject of the transaction is finance (such as borrowing or lending money) as distinct from transactions (such as the purchase or sale of particular goods for a monetary consideration) in which finance, although involved in the payment of a price, cannot properly be seen as constituting the subject of the transaction. A common but not invariable characteristic of the relevant type of transaction is that the obligation on each side is to pay money. The following cases illustrate the application of the definition: • State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1991) 28 FCR 511; 101 ALR 259; 21 IPR 65; [1991] ATPR 41-110; [1991] ASC 56-067. The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales, a statutory corporation, was held to be both a financial and a trading corporation. • Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1990) 170 CLR 276; 64 ALJR 406; 93 ALR 460; [1990] ATPR 41-033. The High Court held that a State bank whose banking business did not extend beyond the limits of the relevant State was not a “financial corporation” within the meaning of the Act. • Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 2) (1985) 5 FCR 476; 11 IR 44; 58 ALR 373. The court refused to accept, for the purposes of interlocutory proceedings, that a union was a financial corporation. • State Superannuation Board v TPC (1982) 150 CLR 282; 57 ALJR 89; 2 TPR 298; 44 ALR 1; [1982] ATPR 40-326. The High Court held that the State Superannuation Board, a Victorian statutory corporation, was a financial corporation. • Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd v SWB Family Credit Union Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 273; [1979] ATPR 40-102. The Federal Court held that a Credit Union incorporated under the Co-operation Act 1923 (NSW) was a financial corporation. • Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094. The Full Court of the Federal Court held that the applicants, co-operative terminating building societies as registered under the Co-operation Act 1923 (NSW), were financial corporations. [CCA.4.280]

Definition: foreign corporations

This definition was inserted to provide a necessary nexus between the Act and the corporations power upon which the Act is substantially founded. The definition closely follows s 51(xx) of the Constitution. The reference to bodies corporate incorporated in external territories relies on s 122 of the Constitution. In Nauru Local Government Council v Australian Shipping Offıcers Assn (1978) 34 FLR 281; 27 ALR 535; [1978] ATPR 40-087, Northrop J held that the Nauru Local Government Council, a body incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Nauru, was a foreign corporation within the meaning of the then TPA. In P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v ACCC [2012] HCA 33 the applicant was an airline incorporated in Indonesia, 95.5% of the shares in which were owned by the Republic of Indonesia and the balance by government controlled corporations. The appellant admitted that it was a foreign corporation but argued unsuccessfully that it was immune from civil penalty proceedings by virtue of the provisions of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth).

88

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.340] [CCA.4.300]

s4 Definition: fully participating jurisdiction

A fully participating jurisdiction is such of a State, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands as are parties to the Conduct Code Agreement and apply Schedule 1 as a law of the State or Territory, either unmodified or with modifications acceptable to the Commonwealth Treasurer. All Australian States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are fully participating jurisdictions. There are a number of consequences of a jurisdiction being a fully participating jurisdiction. They are: • the provisions of Pt IV of the Act apply in those States and Territories without the constitutional limits that restrict the scope of the Act. In other words, the provisions apply fully to individuals in those States and Territories; • those States and Territories are entitled to pass specific legislation exempting specified conduct from the application of Pt IV, other than ss 50 and 50A, under s 51: see [CCA.51.80]. [CCA.4.320]

Definition: give effect to

A corporation will “give effect to” a contract arrangement or understanding if it does an act or thing pursuant to, or “in accordance with”, the contract arrangement or understanding. An act or thing may be done “in accordance with” a contract arrangement or understanding even though the person who did the act or thing did not have the contract arrangement or understanding in mind at the time: Tradestock Pty Ltd v TNT (Management) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1978) 32 FLR 420; 17 ALR 257 at 432 (FLR); TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 at 68 (FCR). Parties which make decisions independently of each other, nevertheless give effect to an arrangement or understanding notwithstanding that they may not have acted in concert: Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165 at 40,268 (ATPR); Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 at [162] (ATPR). There is no reason why a contravention could occur where a third party gives effect to a prohibited arrangement or understanding, but knowledge of the arrangement or understanding is an essential element of a third party’s liability. A connection between the party and the third party is not sufficient to impose liability on the third party: ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304. Continuing supply may constitute giving effect to a contravening arrangement or understanding, but a failure to report or a failure to compete likely does not: ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304. In Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165, the court held that members of an association refusing an application for membership, amounted to giving effect to the provisions of an arrangement for the purposes of s 45(2)(b). [CCA.4.340]

Definition: goods

This definition is relevant to many parts of the Act, including s 45 (anti-competitive contracts), s 45A (price fixing), s 45D (secondary boycotts), s 47 (exclusive dealing), s 48 (resale price maintenance) and s 50 (mergers). The definition is an inclusive definition. It supplements the ordinary meaning of the term: see ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 52,503 (ATPR). According to The Macquarie Dictionary, the ordinary meaning is: “possessions, especially moveable effects or personal chattels; articles of trade; wares; merchandise, especially that which is transported by land; an item of merchandise.”

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

89

CCA ss 1-6AA

The words “give effect to” are not technical words and should be given their ordinary meaning: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Assn Inc [1986] FCA 357; (1986) 19 FCR 10; 69 ALR 660; [1986] ATPR 40-736 (Toohey J).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.340]

Goods which are affixed to land (or to other goods which are themselves fixed to land) become fixtures, thus losing their character as goods and becoming part of the land itself. Goods which have become fixtures are not included in this definition, save in relation to minerals, trees and crops which are specifically included in the definition of “goods” whether affixed to land or not: Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey [2000] FCA 665; (2000) 99 FCR 232; 175 ALR 89; [2000] ATPR 41-766; [2000] ASAL 55-793. However, the definition of this term in the ACL includes fixtures: see ACL s 2. The ACL definition of “goods” is more extensive than this definition. It includes computer software, second-hand goods and any component part of, or accessory to, goods: ACL s 2. It is doubtful whether the explicit inclusion of those additional categories, other than downloadable computer software, makes any difference as they would seem to be covered by the general law meaning of the term in any event: see [ACL.2.120]. Section 4C(c) provides that a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods together with other property or services, or both: see also ACL s 11(c). EXAMPLE Electricity: The inclusion of “electricity” in the definition of the term “goods” does not mean that goods includes encoded electrical signals: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069. Bank notes: In issuing bank notes the Reserve Bank is providing a facility rather than supplying goods. This amounts to a supply of services under the Act: Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1997) 151 ALR 579; [1998] ATPR 41-608. Computer programmes: Whether or not computer programmes constitute “goods” is a matter which has not yet been finally determined: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 468 (FCR). See also Toby Constructions Products Pty Ltd v Computa Bar (Sales) Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 48; (1983) 77 FLR 377; 50 ALR 684; [1983] ATPR 40-377. Blood supply: The supply of blood in the course of a transfusion administered by a hospital during an operation has been held, on the facts of the case, to be a supply of services rather than goods: E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 31 FCR 299; 105 ALR 53; [1992] ATPR 41-156. This case turned on the particular facts and does not stand for the general proposition that the supply of blood will never amount to a supply of goods. Fixtures: Doors fixed to a building cease to be goods when so affixed: Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey [2000] FCA 665; (2000) 99 FCR 232; 175 ALR 89; [2000] ATPR 41-766; [2000] ASAL 55-793. [CCA.4.360]

Definition: member of the Commission

This definition draws a distinction between full-time and part-time members of the ACCC for the purposes of appointment, and quorum provisions. Full-time members are appointed by the Governor-General. Part-time (associate) members are appointed by the Treasurer. See ss 6A to 25. [CCA.4.380]

Concept: offering to do an act

This term is dealt with in s 4(2), which provides that the term includes making it known that the person will accept applications, offers or proposals to do the act in question. The term “offering to do an act on a particular condition” is to be similarly construed. These terms have particular relevance to s 47 (exclusive dealing). [CCA.4.400]

Definition: organisation of employees

This definition is relevant to s 45DC, which deals with the involvement and liability of employee organisations for conduct in breach of ss 45D, 45DA and 45DB.

90

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.440]

s4

The definition covers any organisation, whether incorporated or not, which exists or has as one of its purposes, furthering the interests of its members in relation to their employment. [CCA.4.420]

Definition: price

The term is defined to include a charge of any description. “Price” means the money consideration payable by a buyer under a contract of sale. The fact that additional money consideration may be payable for the performance of an additional, albeit obligatory, obligation by the seller does not make the price apportioned to that additional obligation part of the price for the goods: ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 434; (2002) 126 FCR 434. This definition is relevant to the price fixing provision (s 45A), the exclusive dealing provision (s 47), the resale price maintenance provision (s 48) and to the consumer protection provisions, including s 4B (the definition of the term “consumer”), and former consumer protection provisions. However the ACL contains an expanded definition of the term for the purposes of the application of its provisions.

Whether or not the term “price” includes consideration other than cash has not been settled. In ACCC v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) 36 IPR 75; [1996] ATPR 41-519, Heerey J considered the meaning of this term in the context of former TPA s 53(e) and held that the term meant money consideration. His Honour referred to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of the term, but no reference was made to the definition in s 4. In ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 847; [2002] ATPR 41-878; [2002] ASAL 55-082, Jacobson J decided that, in the context of former TPA s 53(e) the term meant the money consideration for purchase of the goods. As an illustration, the porterage charges considered in TPC v J W Bryant Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-075, while regarded as out-of-pocket expenses which could be passed on to the agents under the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926 (NSW) in addition to their commission charges for the purposes of that Act, would be regarded for the purposes of this Act as part of the price of providing the agents’ services. In Guthrie v Doyle Dane & Bernbach Pty Ltd [1977] FCA 13; (1977) 30 FLR 116; 16 ALR 241; [1977] ATPR 40-037, St John J decided that sales tax was a component of the price of motor vehicles and therefore part of the price. [CCA.4.440]

Definition: provision

This definition is relevant to s 4D (exclusionary provisions), s 45 (anti-competitive understandings) and s 88 (authorisations). The term is not defined, other than in relation to understandings. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term “provision” as: “a clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc, providing for a particular matter; stipulation; proviso; something provided; a measure or other means for meeting a need.” A narrow construction of the term is not intended. The term is used in the Act in a comprehensive, rather than any technical, sense: Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414. A narrow definition would unduly restrict the operation of both ss 45 and 4D. Furthermore, a narrow definition, which restricted the term to clauses in legal instruments, would not be effective in relation to arrangements. When applied to authorisations, if the term were narrowly defined then authorisations would be of little utility in relation to arrangements and may be of little utility even in relation to contracts, where the contract is of broad scope and operation.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

91

CCA ss 1-6AA

The term “charge” is not separately defined, but the obvious purpose of the extended definition is to make it clear that the word “price” is to apply not only to a money consideration payable for a sale, or other supply, of goods, but also to a money consideration payable for the provision, or other supply, of services: ACCC v Dell Computers Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 434; (2002) 126 FCR 434.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4 [CCA.4.460]

[CCA.4.460] Concept: refusing to do an act

This term is dealt with in s 4(2) which provides that the term includes refraining (other than inadvertently) from doing an act, and also making it known that a particular act will not be done. The term has particular relevance to s 47 (exclusive dealing), but it is not limited to that section. By way of example, refraining from doing an act (other than inadvertently), or making it known that an act will not be done, amounts to a refusal to do that act. A refusal to do an act, in turn, amounts to conduct within s 4(2)(a) making it relevant to a wider range of substantive provisions: see [CCA.4.160]. [CCA.4.480]

Definition: send

The word “send” is of flexible meaning and will respond to the particular context in which it is used. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, “to send” may comprehend, inter alia, “to order to be conveyed”, “to order or request (a person) to go to a place or person”, “to cause (a thing) to be transmitted by an intermediary to another person or place” and “to dispatch (a letter, telegram etc) by messenger, post, etc”: Wells v John R Lewis (International) Pty Ltd (1975) 25 FLR 194; 1 TPC 226; [1975] ATPR 40-007 at 210-211 (FLR), (Spicer CJ and Dunphy and Smithers JJ). [CCA.4.500]

Definition: services

This definition is of importance in relation to most, but not all, of the substantive provisions of the Act, including s 45 (anti-competitive contracts, arrangements and understandings), s 45A (price fixing), s 45D (secondary boycotts), s 46 (misuse of market power), s 47 (exclusive dealing) and s 50 (mergers) the former provisions. Section 44B contains a special definition of this term for the access regime. There is also a separate, more extensive definition for the ACL: see ACL s 2. The term is defined in very broad terms, the essential attributes of which are that there must be rights, benefits, privileges or facilities, they must be provided, granted or conferred and that must occur in trade or commerce. That broad scope is then extended by including rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are (or are to be) provided, granted or conferred under one of the types of contracts referred to in the section (but not a supply of goods or the performance of work under a contract of service). The term “contract” includes leases and licenses of land: s 4H. The definition commences with the word ‘includes’ – a term intended to be inclusive, not exhaustive. Unless a contrary intention appears in the substantive provisions being applied, the ordinary meaning of the term “services” is to be adopted along with the specified activities set out in the definition: Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCAFC 155. The term “services” refers to those things which, as a matter of ordinary English, are known as services, subject to the specific inclusions in pars (a) to (d). Although the word “services” has a wide application, it imports the notion of some assistance or accommodation being made available: Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; [1991] ATPR 41-141. The definition does not limit the term to services provided under a contract, although in the extended meanings to which paras (a)-(d) relate the relevant benefits must be at least proposed to be provided under a contract. The introductory words of the definition are sufficient to include in its ambit services provided otherwise than under a contract: TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092; Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; [1991] ATPR 41-141. However: • the mere freedom to negotiate with a person does not amount to the supply of services by that person to the prospective negotiator: Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; [1991] ATPR 41-141; applied in Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839 (Farrell J); • a contractual right to apply for exploration licenses does not fall within the ordinary meaning of the term “services”, but the right to apply for an exploration license under a statute that requires the Minister to consider the application before deciding whether to grant or refuse to grant a license, may amount to “services”, even though a mere refusal to exercise a statutory discretion

92

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.500]

s4

does not: IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1; Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd [2013] NSWSC 281; Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1; (2009) 223 FLR 245; considered in the context of the Act in Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCAFC 155; and • a simple payment of money would not appear to be a “service” even though in one sense, money may be regarded as coming within the word “benefits”: Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd v TPC (1981) 57 FLR 314; 38 ALR 217.

The definition specifically excludes the performance of work under a contract of service, in order to ensure that the Act does not intrude into employer/employee relationships. As a consequence, contracts between footballers and football clubs, being contracts of service, do not come within the definition of “services”: Adamson v West Perth Football Club (1979) 39 FLR 199; 27 ALR 475; [1979] ATPR 40-134. See also Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; 100 ALR 479; 38 IR 394; 33 AILR 105; [1991] ATPR 41-084. However, clubs in amateur football competitions are not necessarily in competition with each other for the supply of services, even if the players are not under contracts of service: Wickham v Canberra & District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-664. The definition also specifically excludes “rights or benefits being the supply of goods”. If, properly characterised, the transaction involves the supply of goods then none of the supply will involve a service: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; [1986] HCA 72 ( Wilson J at p 402) applied in ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 (Edelman J). Section 4C(d)provides that reference to supply of services includes a reference to supply of services “together with property or other services”: see also ACL s 11(d). In order to be a service that comes within the definition the relevant “rights, benefits, privileges or facilities” must be provided, granted or conferred “in trade or commerce”: Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001] FCA 1106; (2001) 123 FCR 62 (Von Doussa J). The term “in trade or commerce” has the same meaning as in other sections of the Act (see [CCA.4.540]): Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839 (Farrell J) applying Kline v Offıcial Secretary to the Governor General [2013] HCA 52; (2013) 249 CLR 645. But the “right, benefit, privilege or facility” does not need to be a trading or commercial activity of the party conferring the right. All that is required is that the relationship or dealing as a whole be of a “trading or commercial nature”: Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839 (Farrell J); on appeal: [2014] FCAFC 155. Examples: • The right to participate in an EOI process for the grant of mining licenses, which involved applying for the Minister’s consent leading to the grant of the necessary approvals for mining activities, amounted to a right, benefit, or privilege being provided by the Minister in trade or commerce and therefore a service, and bids were in relation to the acquisition of a service: Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCAFC 155. • The right, under a franchise agreement, to use a 1300 number as a contact point for calls and the right to have the franchisor consent to an assignment of the franchise by the franchisee (ACCC v Seal-A-Fridge Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 525; (2010) 268 ALR 321; [2010] ATPR 42-316; [2010] ASAL 55-208.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

93

CCA ss 1-6AA

Are shares in a company goods or services? The definition includes rights in relation to, and interests in, personal property. In TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1990) 22 FCR 305; [1990] ATPR 41-001, a case involving the application of the merger provision, s 50, Lockhart J stated that shares in a corporation are neither goods or services, but that observation was in the context of the definition of the term “acquire” which His Honour was called on to interpret. There is no doubt that shares are a chose in action – a right in relation to personal property. A share comprises “a collection of rights and obligations relating to an interest in a company of an economic and proprietary character, but not constituting a debt”: Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (In Liq) [2001] HCA 31; (2001) 207 CLR 165; 75 ALJR 1067 citing Pennington, “Can shares in companies be defined?” (1985) 10 The Company Lawyer 140.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.500] • The provision of bank and other loans (SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417; Begbie v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-288; [1994] Aust Contract Reports 90-038; [1993] ASC 56-254. • Issuing bank notes by the Reserve Bank (Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1997) 151 ALR 579; [1998] ATPR 41-608. • The provision of hospital services, including an operation and blood transfusion, by a hospital (E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 31 FCR 299; 105 ALR 53; [1992] ATPR 41-156. • Offers to provide work with a third party to persons who acquired a particular truck from a nominated dealer (TPC v Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd (1981) 4 TPR 397; 36 ALR 236; [1981] ATPR 40-228). • Advertising house and land packages together with finance (Henderson v Pioneer Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) (1980) 43 FLR 276; 29 ALR 597; [1980] ATPR 40-159. • Arrangements whereby a credit union credited commissions paid to it by travel agents to the accounts of members booking travel through the travel agent (Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd v SWB Family Credit Union Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 273; [1979] ATPR 40-102.

[CCA.4.520]

Definition: supply

This term is used extensively throughout the Act. The definition is expanded in its operation by s 4C. The notion of “supply” is the counterpart of “acquire”. A supply of goods or services must occur as part of a bilateral transaction or dealing under which the other party acquires those goods or services: Cook v Pasminco Ltd [2000] FCA 677; (2000) 99 FCR 548; [2000] ATPR 41-767. “Supply” is a word of wide import. It is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as follows: “to furnish (a person, establishment, place, etc) with what is lacking or requisite; to furnish or provide (something wanting or requisite); to make up (a deficiency); make up for (a loss, lack, absence, etc); satisfy (a need, demand, etc); to fill (a place, vacancy, etc).” Neither s 4C nor the definition in s 4 calls for any restrictive interpretation of the term: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 509; 64 ALR 536; [1986] ATPR 40-653 at 532 (FCR) per Lockhart J. For instance, it is not necessary for a person to be in a contractual relationship with a consumer in order for that person to be a supplier of a service to that consumer: ACCC v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 1313 (Logan J). Where a supply of both goods and services occurs, how is the supply to be characterised? In Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751 at 402 (CLR), 13 (ALJR), 381 (ALR), 48,162 (ATPR) Wilson J said: The Act clearly contemplates that services may accompany the supply of goods in such a way as to constitute a single transaction properly described as a supply of goods. It follows that an act or series of acts, once characterised for the purposes of the Act as a supply of goods, cannot also be a supply of services. [CCA.4.540]

Definition: trade or commerce

This definition is of importance in relation to s 47 (exclusive dealing) and former consumer protection provisions, now contained in the Australian Consumer Law. Breaches of the ACL will only occur where the conduct complained of has been engaged in “in trade or commerce”. The term “trade or commerce” derives from s 51(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. The term is not a term of art. It is a term of common knowledge and of wide import, covering “intercourse for the purposes of trade in any and all its forms, including the transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of commodities”: Welton v Missouri 91 US 275 (1875) per Field J. See also W & A McArthur Ltd v

94

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4.540]

s4

Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530; 27 ALR 130. The term describes “all the mutual communings, the negotiations verbal and by correspondence, the bargain, the transport and the delivery which comprised commercial arrangements”: Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094 at 139 (FLR), per Bowen CJ.

In Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094 at 167 (FLR) Deane J said: The terms “trade” and “commerce” ... are expressions of fact and terms of common knowledge. While the particular instances that may fall within them will depend upon the varying phases of development of trade, commerce and commercial communication, the terms are clearly of the widest import … they are not restricted to dealings or communications which can properly be described as being at arm’s length in the sense that they are within open markets or between strangers or have a dominant objective of profit making. They are apt to include commercial or business dealings in finance between a company and its members which are not within the main stream of ordinary commercial activities and which, while being commercial in character, are marked by a degree of altruism which is not compatible with a dominant objective of profit making. The definition in the Act differs from the Constitution. It defines the term to mean “trade or commerce within Australia or between Australia and places outside Australia”. The definition applies to intrastate trade and commerce as well as interstate trade and commerce. There is a difference between conduct “in trade or commerce” and conduct “in respect of trade or commerce” or “in relation to trade or commerce”. The relevant sections are only concerned with conduct in the course of activities which, of their nature, bear a trading or commercial character: Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193; Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59; (2006) 225 CLR 553; 81 ALJR 466; 231 ALR 534. See also Toben v Jones [2012] FCA 1193 (Yates J). In Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193, the court decided that conduct in relation to employment conditions was conduct in respect of trade and commerce, not conduct in trade or commerce and that it was not covered by former TPA s 52 (now ACL s 18). The court said (CLR at 604; ALR at 197; ATPR at 51,364): [I]t is plain that s 52 was not intended to extend to all conduct, regardless of its nature, in which a corporation might engage in the course of, or for the purposes of, its overall trading or commercial business. … the reference to conduct “in trade or commerce” in s 52 can be construed as referring only to conduct which is itself an aspect or element of activities or transactions which, of their nature, bear a trading or commercial character. The precise limits of what conduct is in or is not in trade or commerce cannot be definitively stated: Plimer v Roberts (1997) 80 FCR 303; 150 ALR 235; 39 IPR 257; [1998] ATPR 41-602. In Hearn v O’Rourke [2003] FCAFC 78; (2003) 129 FCR 64; [2003] ATPR 41-931; [2003] ASAL 55-102, Dowsett J explained the process of deciding whether or not conduct is in trade or commerce as follows: [T]he focus must be upon the conduct in question and not upon the range of activities in which a relevant corporation may be engaged. In other words, one does not simply identify the conduct in question, note that the relevant corporation is engaged in commercial activity of some kind and then look to a connection between the two. Because corporations are usually formed to engage in commercial activities, it will rarely be difficult to find such a connection. The correct approach is to determine whether or not the relevant conduct can, according to ordinary usage, be described as having occurred in the course of dealings “which, of their nature, bear a trading or commercial character”. The

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

95

CCA ss 1-6AA

In Ransom v Higgs [1974] 1 WLR 1594 at 1600 Lord Reid described the term “trade” as follows: As an ordinary word in the English language “trade” has or has had a variety of meanings or shades of meaning. Leaving aside obsolete and rare usage it is sometimes used to denote any mercantile operation but is commonly used to denote operations of a commercial character by which the trader provides to customers for reward some kind of goods or services.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.540]

commercial undertakings of the corporation in question may be relevant to the exercise. However, the more important question will be whether the conduct is of a kind which is usually of a commercial nature. The dividing line will often be difficult to discern and will involve consideration of what imports a trading or commercial character in relation to a particular activity which, without more, would not have that character. This is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case: Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 133; (2004) 134 FCR 422; 208 ALR 98; [2004] ATPR 41-979; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-190. See also Fletcher v Nextra Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 52; Meadow Gem Pty Ltd v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-130. It seems clear that claims made at a time after the party making them has ceased trading will not be made “in trade or commerce”; ACCC v SMS Global Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 855. Representations made to statutory authorities as required by legislation in order to satisfy a statutory condition or to obtain an exercise of statutory power are not, of themselves, made in trade or commerce. The relationship is “a relationship between a regulator and a regulated industry or business”: Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 240; (2004) 139 FCR 330; Glueck v Stang [2008] FCA 148; Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1283; Gold & Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd [2013] NSWSC 281; GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Pharmacor Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1202. However, that does not mean that all circumstances in which submissions are made to a public authority will necessarily be regarded as not made in trade or commerce: see Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839; RP Data Limited v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639; (2007) 221 FCR 392; Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 169; Brown v Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd (1985) 60 ALR 595; [1985] ASC 55-413; [1985] ATPR 40-576 and Merman Pty Ltd v Cockburn Cement Ltd (1988) 84 ALR 521; [1988] ATPR 40-915. A representation can be made in trade or commerce even though it is not in the trade of the person making the representation, so long as it is in the trade of the person to whom the representation is made: Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59; (2006) 225 CLR 553; 81 ALJR 466; 231 ALR 534; Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193 per Toohey J; Fletcher v Nextra Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 52. For other examples of consumer cases in which consideration has been given to this question, see also[ACL.18.60]. EXAMPLE • Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd [2013] NSWSC 281. Statements made by the respondent to the NSW Department of Primary Industries in the course of seeking renewal of two exploration licences were held to be not made in trade or commerce. • Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd v Secretary to the Department of Sustainability & Environment [2010] VSC 389; (2010) 241 FLR 360. Statements made to the applicant by the Department concerning the renewal of timber entitlements were held to not have been made in trade or commerce. • Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1; (2009) 223 FLR 245. As there was no potential or actual trading or commercial dealing or relationship between the respondent and the Minister in relation to the lodgment of a development application, the relationship between the planning authority and applicant for planning approval was not of a trading or commercial character. • Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Ltd [2007] FCA 835; (2007) 163 IR 207; 59 AILR 100-676. The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, claimed that the respondent had engaged in misleading conduct when she was dismissed following discovery of a payroll fraud perpetrated by others but from which she benefited through overpayment of her salary. The

96

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

s4

conduct of the respondent was not in trade or commerce. Nor were statements made on the respondent’s behalf to the Industrial Relations Commission in a case brought by the applicant made in trade or commerce. Glueck v Stang [2008] FCA 148; (2008) 75 IPR 75; [2008] ATPR 42-220. Alleged representations made to the Australian Patent Office and to the US Patent and Trademark Office were not made in trade or commerce because they were not made in the course of a trading or commercial relationship between the patent applicant and either office, the patent applicant had no trading or commercial dealings with either office, nor were the representations made in the course of the negotiation of contracts. Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd [2005] FCAFC 256; (2005) 148 FCR 68; [2005] ATPR 46-267. The pilot of a ship, performing duties on behalf of the port pursuant to statute, was found to have been doing so in trade or commerce. Village Building Co Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 240; (2004) 139 FCR 330; 210 ALR 114; [2004] ATPR 42-019. Representations made by an airport owner to the relevant authority concerning future noise patterns at its airport were not conduct in trade or commerce. Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v RSPCA (Vic) [2002] FCA 860; (2002) 120 FCR 191; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-223; [2002] ASAL 55-089. Statements made by an officer of the RSPCA in opposing the sale of electronic dog collars were not made in trade or commerce. Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 4) [2001] FCA 1106; (2001) 123 FCR 62; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-214. A consultant who was engaged to prepare a report for a statutory authority for a fee had entered the consultancy contract in trade or commerce but in preparing the report the consultant was carrying out a statutory function, and accordingly statements made in the consultant’s report were not made in trade or commerce. Statements made in a report prepared by another consultant, although prepared for reward, were not made in trade or commerce because it was a professional report expressing the consultant’s professional opinions. RGC Mineral Sands Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 22. Representations made to the Commissioner of Patents in proceedings opposing the grant of a trade mark were not made in trade or commerce. McCormick v Riverwood International (Australia) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1640; (1999) 167 ALR 689. Statements about future employment made in the context of sale negotiations were capable of being in trade or commerce. NRMA Ltd v Yates [1999] NSWSC 859; [1999] ATPR 41-721; (1999) 18 ACLC 45. A statement made in an election advertisement by a director of the applicant company was made in trade or commerce. But see Yates v Whitlam [1999] ATPR 41-722; [2000] 18 ACLC 55. Robin Pty Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1019; (1999) 179 ALR 449; [1999] ATPR 41-710. An advertisement by an airport operator opposed to rezoning of land under a flight path was found to be a political exercise rather than a publication in trade or commerce. Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [1998] FCA 1560; [1998] ATPR 41-669. The applicant challenged an ACCC press release on several grounds, including that it was misleading and deceptive. The court struck out the statement of claim because, as pleaded, it did not disclose that the ACCC had published the press release in trade or commerce. Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1997) 151 ALR 579; [1998] ATPR 41-608. In promoting plastic banknotes the Reserve Bank was engaging in an activity in trade or commerce. Plimer v Roberts (1997) 80 FCR 303; 150 ALR 235; 39 IPR 257; [1998] ATPR 41-602. Statements made in the course of public lectures and taped interviews by an academic who was not paid for them were not made in trade or commerce.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

97

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4.540]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.540]

• News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521. The Australian Rugby League and its member clubs were engaging in trade and commerce because they derived substantial sums from sponsorships, sold television rights and merchandising rights, received gate takings and hired grounds. • Meadow Gem Pty Ltd v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd [1994] ATPR (Digest) 46-130. The court refused to strike out a statement of claim alleging that statements made by a Minister and government officials concerning the solvency of a building society were misleading. The strike out application was based on the arguments that the statements were not made in trade or commerce. • Tobacco Institute of Australia v Woodward (1993) 32 NSWLR 559; [1994] ATPR 41-185. In a case brought under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), the court held that a person who made public statements on behalf of a lobby group opposed to tobacco was not engaged in trade or commerce. • Unilan Holdings Pty Ltd v Kerin (1992) 35 FCR 272; 107 ALR 709; [1992] ATPR 41-169. A claim under former TPA s 52 made against the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy arising from a speech he had made was struck out because the speech was not made in trade or commerce. • Barto v GPR Management Services Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 389; 105 ALR 339; 34 AILR 141; [1992] ATPR 41-162. The court refused to strike out as unsustainable a claim that misleading conduct in breach of former TPA s 52 had been involved in employment negotiations. The applicant argued that no such claim was open in the light of Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193. See, however, Martin v Tasmania Development & Resources [1999] FCA 593; (1999) 89 IR 98; 163 ALR 79; [1999] ATPR (Digest) 46-193; and Mulcahy v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170; 44 AILR 3-837; [1998] ATPR (Digest) 46-186. • E v Australian Red Cross Soc (1991) 27 FCR 310; 99 ALR 601; [1991] ATPR 41-085. The Red Cross was held not to have engaged in conduct in trade or commerce in gratuitously supplying blood to a patient. • Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193. The High Court held that misleading information given by one employee of a builder to another employee was not information provided in trade or commerce in the sense intended by the Act. • Bond Corp Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 215; 71 ALR 615; 3 BPR 434; [1987] ATPR 40-771; [1987] ASC 55-557. French J held that the provision of professional advice by an engineer was in trade or commerce. • Patrick v Steel Mains Pty Ltd (1987) 77 ALR 133; 22 IR 81; [1987] ATPR 40-794. A statement made in the course of employment negotiations was held to be capable of being conduct in trade or commerce. • Orison Pty Ltd v Strategic Minerals Corp NL (1987) 77 ALR 141; 13 ACLR 314; [1987] ATPR 40-803. A statement made in a memorandum by the directors of a corporation to shareholders in relation to a proposed acquisition to be considered by shareholders at a general meeting of the corporation was held to be capable of being conduct in trade or commerce. • Bevanere Pty Ltd v Lubidineuse (1985) 7 FCR 325; 59 ALR 334; 4 IPR 467; [1985] ATPR 40-565. The Federal Court held that the sale of a cosmetic clinic by a company which was not engaged in the business of selling such assets was nevertheless a transaction in trade or commerce. The court distinguished O’Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107; 2 IPR 69; [1983] ATPR 40-418 (O’Brien v Smolonogov) on the basis that the land in that case was not used for any business activity.

98

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s4

• O’Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107; 2 IPR 69; [1983] ATPR 40-418. The Federal Court held that a private sale of a parcel of rural land was not a transaction “in trade or commerce”, applying American decisions which drew a distinction between private sales and sales in a business context. See also Argy v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112; 94 ALR 719; [1990] ATPR 41-015; [1990] ASC 55-963; Eighth SRJ Pty Ltd v Merity (1997) 7 BPR 15,189. • Glorie v WA Chip & Pulp Co Pty Ltd (1981) 55 FLR 310; 39 ALR 67; 1 TPR 84. The respondent argued that a film which he had had produced to explain to the public the way in which an area in Western Australia known as the south-west forest was managed and utilised was not exhibited in trade or commerce but was merely a political exercise. Morling J held that the film was exhibited in trade or commerce. In Robin Pty Ltd v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1019; (1999) 179 ALR 449; [1999] ATPR 41-710, Gyles J doubted the correctness of this decision in the light of Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193. • TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092. The court rejected an argument that transactions between a trading co-operative and its members were not “in trade or commerce”. • Swan v Downes (1978) 34 FLR 36; [1978] ATPR 40-068. Solicitation by mail of subscriptions for books and magazines published in the United Kingdom was “in trade or commerce” but, as the defendant was a natural person and the solicitation was not in trade or commerce among States, no offence had been committed. • Larmer v Power Machinery Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 490; 14 ALR 243; [1977] ATPR 40-021. The display of a brochure in the foyer of the defendant company was held to constitute a representation in trade or commerce. • Wells v John R Lewis (International) Pty Ltd (1975) 25 FLR 194; 1 TPC 226; [1975] ATPR 40-007. This case related to the posting of pro forma invoices to companies in Australia and overseas relating to entries in a business directory. The transactions were held to be in trade or commerce notwithstanding that the invoices to which the charges related were intercepted in the post and therefore never received by the addressees. [CCA.4.560] Definition: trading corporation This definition provides a necessary nexus between the Act and the corporations power upon which the Act is substantially based. The definition imports s 51(xx) of the Constitution. In Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Assn Inc [1986] FCA 357; (1986) 19 FCR 10; 69 ALR 660; [1986] ATPR 40-736 at 671 (ALR), Toohey J summarised the court decisions on the meaning of the term “trading corporation” as follows: (1) The mere fact that a corporation trades does not mean that it is a trading corporation: R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974) 130 CLR 533 at 543, 562 (St George County Council); R v Judges of Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Western Australian National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190 at 219, 234 (Adamson). (2) The purpose of incorporation, propounded in St George County Council, is no longer a valid test. The test is one of the current activities of the corporation: Adamson and State Superannuation Board v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282 at 304; (State Superannuation Board). (3) But the current activities test is not the sole criterion for determining whether a corporation is a trading corporation. Thus where a corporation has not begun to trade, its character may be found in its constitution. Even when there are current activities, the corporation’s constitution is not completely irrelevant: Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; 57 ALJR 317; 15 TPR 171; 46 ALR 41; [1983] ATPR 40-350 at 602 (CLR).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

99

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4.560]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s4

[CCA.4.560] (4) Views as to the necessary extent of trading activity have varied. It must be a substantial corporate activity (Barwick CJ in Adamson (1979) 143 CLR 190 at 208); the trading activities must form a sufficiently significant proportion of the corporation’s overall activities (Mason J in Adamson at 233, with Jacobs J concurring at 237); the trading activities should not be insubstantial (Murphy J in Adamson at 239); the corporation must carry on trading activities on a significant scale (Mason, Murphy and Deane JJ in State Superannuation Board (1982) 150 CLR 282 at 304; Deane J in Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 57 ALJR 450 at 560. (5) An incorporated sporting body can be a trading corporation if its activities meet the required test (Adamson). (6) In particular, incorporation under a statute such as the Assns Incorporation Act does not prevent a corporate body from being a trading corporation if its activities warrant that description (Adamson at 232). (7) Trading denotes the activity of providing, for reward, goods or services: Re Ku-ring-gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; ATPR 40-094 at 138-139 (FLR); St George County Council (1974) 130 CLR 533 at 569-570; Bevanere Pty Ltd v Lubidineuse (1985) 7 FCR 325; 59 ALR 334; 4 IPR 467; [1985] ATPR 40-565 at 330-331 (FLR). (8) The Act itself draws a distinction between trading corporations and financial corporations; nevertheless the two classes are not mutually exclusive: State Superannuation Board (1982) 150 CLR 282 at 303.

In R v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Western Australian National Football League (Inc) (1979) 143 CLR 190; 53 ALJR 273; 23 ALR 439; [1979] ATPR 40-103, the High Court held (by a four to three majority) that the League was a trading corporation and refused to follow the previous High Court decision in R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974) 130 CLR 533; 48 ALJR 26; 2 ALR 371. The judges forming the majority expressed differing views as to what the term “trading corporation” included. They were as follows: • Mason and Jacobs JJ found that the term described a corporation when its trading activities form a sufficiently significant portion of its overall activities as to merit it being so described. • Barwick CJ found that the term applied to a corporation if trading was a substantial corporate activity. In his Honour’s view it is the activities of a corporation rather than its purpose for incorporation that is relevant and if trading is a substantial and not merely a peripheral activity not forbidden by the corporation’s rules, it is open to find that the corporation is a trading corporation. • Murphy J found that the term included both bodies incorporated for the purpose of trading and those corporations which in fact trade. In his Honour’s view a corporation which trades is included in the definition even if it is incorporated under legislation which bans trading, and the term does not only refer to corporations which do nothing else but trade or in which trading is the dominant activity. In his Honour’s view as long as trading is not insubstantial, the fact that trading is incidental to other activities does not prevent the corporation from being a trading corporation. EXAMPLE • Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd v Secretary to the Department of Sustainability & Environment [2010] VSC 389; (2010) 241 FLR 360. Although the Department did engage in some trading activities, those activities were not held to be a sufficiently significant proportion of its overall activities to merit its description as a trading corporation. • Shahid v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2007] FCA 693; (2007) 72 IPR 555. The College, which provided training and accreditation for medical practitioners, was not done for reward in that there was no payment by the hospital for the College undertaking the process of selection of trainee registrars or for the training of registrars. However, the principal trading

100

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

s4

activity of the College was its annual scientific meeting and trade exhibition and the College also earned some income from its training functions. This was sufficient to constitute the college a trading corporation: see also Shahid v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2008] FCAFC 72; (2008) 168 FCR 46; 248 ALR 267. Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v RSPCA (Vic) [2002] FCA 860; (2002) 120 FCR 191; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-223; [2002] ASAL 55-089. Although the RSPCA’s trading activities were acknowledged to be ancillary to its main purpose, they were nevertheless found to be sufficiently significant for the association to be a trading corporation. E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 27 FCR 310; 99 ALR 601; [2002] ATPR 41-085. The Red Cross was held to be a trading corporation because it earned substantial income from its shop, stalls and from running courses. The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, a State statutory corporation, was also held to be a trading corporation for the purposes of the then TPA. State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1991) 28 FCR 511; 101 ALR 259; 21 IPR 65; [1991] ATPR 41-110; [1991] ASC 56-067. The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales, a statutory corporation, was held to be both a trading and a financial corporation. Australian Beauty Trade Suppliers Ltd v Conference & Exhibition Organisers Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 68; 99 ALR 474; [1991] ATPR 41-107. The court held that the activities of a small trade association, which operated on the basis of voluntary members’ labour and which organised an annual trade fair as its major activity, were sufficient to categorise the association as a trading corporation. Milchas Investments Pty Ltd v Larkin (1989) 96 FLR 464; [1989] ATPR 40-956. The court held that a company formed to operate a building commercially was within the definition. McCarthy v Australian Rough Riders Assn Inc [1988] ATPR 40-836. The court held that the association was not a trading corporation because its trading activities were not sufficiently significant for the applicant to be so characterised. OD Transport Pty Ltd v Western Australian Government Railways Commission (1986) 13 FCR 270; 71 ALR 190; [1987] ATPR 40-761. French J found that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the Commission was a trading corporation. Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; 57 ALJR 317; 15 TPR 171; 46 ALR 41; [1983] ATPR 40-350. The High Court found that a company which was incorporated to become the trustee of an existing unit trust and which was required to do no more than receive the proceeds of sale of a business, pay off creditors and distribute the balance to unit holders, was a trading corporation having regard to the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association. Bradken Consolidated Ltd v BHP (1979) 145 CLR 107; 53 ALJR 452; 24 ALR 9; [1979] ATPR 40-106; (1979) 5 TPC 1. Gibbs J expressed the opinion that the Queensland Commissioner for Railways was not a trading corporation. Murphy J took the opposite view and the remaining members of the court expressed no opinion on the matter. Universal Telecasters (Qld) Ltd v Guthrie (1978) 32 FLR 360; 18 ALR 531; [1978] ATPR 40-062. The court held that a company which operated a commercial television station was a trading corporation. TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092. The court held that a society incorporated under the Co-operation Act 1923 (NSW) as a trading society was a trading corporation within the meaning of the Act.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

101

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4.560]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4A

4A

Subsidiary, holding and related bodies corporate

(1) [When body corporate deemed subsidiary] For the purposes of this Act, a body corporate shall, subject to subsection (3), be deemed to be a subsidiary of another body corporate if: (a) that other body corporate: (i)

controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned body corporate;

(ii)

is in a position to cast, or control the casting of, more than one-half of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of the first-mentioned body corporate; or (iii) holds more than one-half of the allotted share capital of the first-mentioned body corporate (excluding any part of that allotted share capital that carries no right to participate beyond a specified amount in a distribution of either profits or capital); or (b) the first-mentioned body corporate is a subsidiary of any body corporate that is that other body corporate’s subsidiary (including any body corporate that is that other body corporate’s subsidiary by another application or other applications of this paragraph). (2) [When board deemed controlled by another body corporate] For the purposes of subsection (1), the composition of a body corporate’s board of directors shall be deemed to be controlled by another body corporate if that other body corporate, by the exercise of some power exercisable by it without the consent or concurrence of any other person, can appoint or remove all or a majority of the directors, and for the purposes of this provision that other body corporate shall be deemed to have power to make such an appointment if: (a) a person cannot be appointed as a director without the exercise in his or her favour by that other body corporate of such a power; or (b) a person’s appointment as a director follows necessarily from his or her being a director or other officer of that other body corporate. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

(3) [Determining whether body corporate is subsidiary] In determining whether a body corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate: (a) any shares held or power exercisable by that other body corporate in a fiduciary capacity shall be treated as not held or exercisable by it; (b) subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), any shares held or power exercisable: (i) by any person as a nominee for that other body corporate (except where that other body corporate is concerned only in a fiduciary capacity); or (ii) by, or by a nominee for, a subsidiary of that other body corporate, not being a subsidiary that is concerned only in a fiduciary capacity; shall be treated as held or exercisable by that other body corporate; (c) any shares held or power exercisable by any person by virtue of the provisions of any debentures of the first-mentioned body corporate, or of a trust deed for securing any allotment of such debentures, shall be disregarded; and

102

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4A.20] (d)

s 4A

any shares held or power exercisable by, or by a nominee for, that other body corporate or its subsidiary (not being held or exercisable as mentioned in paragraph (c)) shall be treated as not held or exercisable by that other body corporate if the ordinary business of that other body corporate or its subsidiary, as the case may be, includes the lending of money and the shares are held or the power is exercisable by way of security only for the purposes of a transaction entered into in the ordinary course of that business.

(4) [Reference to holding company] A reference in this Act to the holding company of a body corporate shall be read as a reference to a body corporate of which that other body corporate is a subsidiary.

(5A) [Relations between bodies corporate] For the purposes of Parts IV, VI and VII: (a) a body corporate that is a party to a dual listed company arrangement is taken to be related to the other body corporate that is a party to the arrangement; and (b) a body corporate that is related to one of the parties to the arrangement is taken to be related to the other party to the arrangement; and (c) a body corporate that is related to one of the parties to the arrangement is taken to be related to each body corporate that is related to the other party to the arrangement. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 2]

(6) [Presumption: bodies corporate unrelated] In proceedings under this Act, whether in the Court or before the Tribunal or the Commission, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that bodies corporate are not, or were not at a particular time, related to each other. [S 4A am Act 131 of 2006; Act 88 of 1995; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4A COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.4A.20] Definition: body corporate ............................................................................................................... [CCA.4A.40] Concept: related .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4A.60]

[CCA.4A.20]

Outline

The CCA recognises that in many instances its application could be avoided unless the activities of all of the corporations in a group are considered together, and that in other instances the Act may work unfairly if corporate group activities were not excluded. Accordingly, for example: • Section 46(2) makes it clear that all related corporations are to be considered when assessing the market power of a particular corporation. • Section 45(8) provides that the prohibition against anti-competitive contracts, arrangements and understandings does not apply to contracts, arrangements or understandings between related corporations.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

103

CCA ss 1-6AA

(5) [Relations between bodies corporate] Where a body corporate: (a) is the holding company of another body corporate; (b) is a subsidiary of another body corporate; or (c) is a subsidiary of the holding company of another body corporate; that first-mentioned body corporate and that other body corporate shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be related to each other.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4B

[CCA.4A.20]

Section 4A defines the circumstances in which corporations will be deemed to be related. This will occur where a body corporate is: • the holding company of another; • a subsidiary of another body corporate; or • a subsidiary of a holding company of another body corporate: s 4A(5). Section 4A provides the basis for determining when bodies corporate are related to one another for the purposes of those provisions. [CCA.4A.40]

Definition: body corporate

The term “body corporate” is not defined in the Act. The term encompasses any office or group of people recognised at law as having separate legal personality. Corporations, whether incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 or by special statute, come within the definition. Government business enterprises established by statute as having the perpetual succession are examples of the latter. The term does not, however, encompass a body politic: Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s 22. Accordingly, States, Territories and the Commonwealth are not bodies corporate. Section 4A(5) was considered in Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285. Mason J said (at CLR 210): Plainly the reach of this provision extends to corporations which stand outside paras (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of “corporation”. It therefore takes the operative provisions beyond the boundaries of Commonwealth power. However … it is possible to sever. See also R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 at 241 (CLR). [CCA.4A.60]

Concept: related

Bodies corporate are to be regarded as related to one another if one is the holding company or a subsidiary of the other, or where the two bodies are both subsidiaries of the same holding company: s 4A(5). The word “related” does not have any extended meaning in either s 46 or s 50, over that provided by s 4A(5): Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; TPC v Bowral Brickworks Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 552; 55 ALR 733; [1984] ATPR 40-480. Statutory corporations are not “related” within the meaning of the CCA: Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust (1990) 22 FCR 495; 94 ALR 225; [1990] ATPR 41-029. 4B

Consumers

(1) [Acquisition of particular goods as consumer] For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: (a) a person shall be taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer if, and only if: (i) the price of the goods did not exceed the prescribed amount; or (ii) where that price exceeded the prescribed amount—the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption or the goods consisted of a commercial road vehicle; and the person did not acquire the goods, or hold himself or herself out as acquiring the goods, for the purpose of re-supply or for the purpose of using them up or transforming them, in trade or commerce, in the course of a process of production or manufacture or of repairing or treating other goods or fixtures on land; and (b) a person shall be taken to have acquired particular services as a consumer if, and only if: (i) the price of the services did not exceed the prescribed amount; or

104

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s 4B (ii)

where that price exceeded the prescribed amount—the services were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption.

[Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; Act 17 of 1986, s 5; Act 151 of 1977, s 3]

(2) [Prescribed amount of goods or services] For the purposes of subsection (1): (a)

the prescribed amount is $40,000 or, if a greater amount is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph, that greater amount;

subject to paragraph (c), the price of goods or services purchased by a person shall be taken to have been the amount paid or payable by the person for the goods or services; (c) where a person purchased goods or services together with other property or services, or with both other property and services, and a specified price was not allocated to the goods or services in the contract under which they were purchased, the price of the goods or services shall be taken to have been: (i) the price at which, at the time of the acquisition, the person could have purchased from the supplier the goods or services without the other property or services; (ii) if, at the time of the acquisition, the goods or services were not available for purchase from the supplier except together with the other property or services but, at that time, goods or services of the kind acquired were available for purchase from another supplier without other property or services—the lowest price at which the person could, at that time, reasonably have purchased goods or services of that kind from another supplier; or (iii) if, at the time of the acquisition, goods or services of the kind acquired were not available for purchase from any supplier except together with other property or services—the value of the goods or services at that time; (d) where a person acquired goods or services otherwise than by way of purchase, the price of the goods or services shall be taken to have been: (i) the price at which, at the time of the acquisition, the person could have purchased the goods or services from the supplier; (ii) if, at the time of the acquisition, the goods or services were not available for purchase from the supplier or were so available only together with other property or services but, at that time, goods or services of the kind acquired were available for purchase from another supplier—the lowest price at which the person could, at that time, reasonably have purchased goods or services of that kind from another supplier; or (iii) if goods or services of the kind acquired were not available, at the time of the acquisition, for purchase from any supplier or were not so available except together with other property or services—the value of the goods or services at that time; and (e) without limiting by implication the meaning of the expression services in subsection 4(1), the obtaining of credit by a person in connection with the acquisition of goods or services by him or her shall be deemed to be the acquisition by him or her of a service and any amount by which the amount paid or payable by him or her for the goods or services is increased by reason of his or her so obtaining credit shall be deemed to be paid or payable by him or her for that service.

[Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; Act 17 of 1986, s 5; Act 151 of 1977, s 3]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

105

CCA ss 1-6AA

(b)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4B

[CCA.4B.20]

(3) [Presumption that person was consumer] Where it is alleged in any proceeding under this Act or in any other proceeding in respect of a matter arising under this Act that a person was a consumer in relation to particular goods or services, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that the person was a consumer in relation to those goods or services. (4) [Definition: commercial road vehicle] In this section, commercial road vehicle means a vehicle or trailer acquired for use principally in the transport of goods on public roads. [Subs (4) insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 5] [S 4B am Act 88 of 1995; Act 17 of 1986; Act 151 of 1977; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4B COMMENTARY [CCA.4B.20]

Summary

This section defines the term “consumer”. Originally it did so because certain consumer protection provisions of the Act applied to consumers, but now those provisions are in the Australian Consumer Law, which contains its own definition of the term “consumer”. The definition would seem to now be redundant. While the term is used in Pt XI, which applies the Australian Consumer Law as a law of the Commonwealth, s 130A makes it clear that expressions used in that Part have the same meaning as in the ACL. See [ACL.3.20]. 4C

Acquisition, supply and re-supply In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: (a) a reference to the acquisition of goods includes a reference to the acquisition of property in, or rights in relation to, goods in pursuance of a supply of the goods; (b) a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods or services includes a reference to agreeing to supply or acquire goods or services; (c) a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods together with other property or services, or both; (d) a reference to the supply or acquisition of services includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of services together with property or other services, or both; (e) a reference to the re-supply of goods acquired from a person includes a reference to: (i) a supply of the goods to another person in an altered form or condition; and (ii) a supply to another person of goods in which the first-mentioned goods have been incorporated; (f) a reference to the re-supply of services (the original services) acquired from a person (the original supplier) includes a reference to: (i) a supply of the original services to another person in an altered form or condition; and (ii) a supply to another person of other services that are substantially similar to the original services, and could not have been supplied if the original services had not been acquired by the person who acquired them from the original supplier.

[S 4C am Act 88 of 1995, s 5; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

106

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4C.40]

s 4C

SECTION 4C COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.4C.20] Definition: supply ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4C.40]

[CCA.4C.20]

Outline

This section deals with the acquisition, supply and resupply of goods and services. It is to be compared with s 4(4), which deals with acquisitions of shares and assets of a body corporate: see [CCA.4.40]. Section 4C does not affect the ordinary meaning of the word “acquire”. The effect of the section is to incorporate into the connotation of that word, where used in the Act, the additional meanings referred to in the section: Peterson v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd (2010) 184 FCR 1; [2010] FCA 180 (Jessup J).

The section makes it clear that: • references in the Act to the acquisition of goods include acquisition of property in the goods, acquisition of rights in the goods pursuant to a supply of the goods, agreement to acquire the goods, property in the goods or rights in the goods and acquisition of the goods with services or other property, or both; • references in the Act to the acquisition of services include agreeing to acquire services and acquisition of services with property or other services, or both; • references in the Act to the supply of goods include agreeing to supply goods and supplying goods with services or other property, or both; and • references in the Act to the supply of services include agreeing to supply services supplying services with property or other services, or both. The section also contains an explanation of the scope of the terms “resupply of goods” and “resupply of services” which are relevant to the interpretation of s 47 (exclusive dealing) and s 48 (resale price maintenance). The terms include: • resupply of the goods or services in an altered form or condition; • supply of goods incorporating the resupplied goods; and • supply of services substantially similar to original services where supply could not have occurred if the original services had not been supplied. The terms “goods” and “services” are defined in [CCA.4.340] and [CCA.4.500] respectively. [CCA.4C.40]

Definition: supply

“Supply” is a word of wide import. It is defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as follows: 1. to furnish (a person, establishment, place, etc) with what is lacking or requisite; 2. to furnish or provide (something wanting or requisite); 3. to make up (a deficiency); make up for (a loss, lack, absence, etc); satisfy (a need, demand, etc); 4. to fill (a place, vacancy, etc). Such is the breadth of the ordinary meaning of the word “supply” that s 4 does not add much, if anything, to the meaning of the word for the purposes of the Act: ACCC v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) [2013] ATPR 42-458; (2013) 307 ALR 209; [2013] FCA 1313 (Logan J); ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 (Edelman J). Neither s 4C nor the definition in s 4 call for any restrictive interpretation of the term: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 509; 64 ALR 536; [1986] ATPR 40-653 at 532 (FCR) per Lockhart J.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

107

CCA ss 1-6AA

The section is relevant to the interpretation of s 45 (anti-competitive contracts, arrangements and understandings), s 45A (price fixing), s 45D (secondary boycotts), s 46 (misuse of market power), s 47 (exclusive dealing) and s 48 (resale price maintenance).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4D

4D

[CCA.4D.20]

Exclusionary provisions

(1) [Contract provision taken to be exclusionary] A provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, shall be taken to be an exclusionary provision for the purposes of this Act if: (a) the contract or arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, or the proposed contract or arrangement is to be made, or the proposed understanding is to be arrived at, between persons any 2 or more of whom are competitive with each other; and (b) the provision has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting: (i) the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons in particular circumstances or on particular conditions; by all or any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding or of the proposed parties to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding or, if a party or proposed party is a body corporate, by a body corporate that is related to the body corporate. [Subs (1) am Act 17 of 1986, s 6]

(2) [Person deemed competitive] A person shall be deemed to be competitive with another person for the purposes of subsection (1) if, and only if, the first-mentioned person or a body corporate that is related to that person is, or is likely to be, or, but for the provision of any contract, arrangement or understanding or of any proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, would be, or would be likely to be, in competition with the other person, or with a body corporate that is related to the other person, in relation to the supply or acquisition of all or any of the goods or services to which the relevant provision of the contract, arrangement or understanding or of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding relates. [Subs (2) insrt Act 206 of 1978, s 4] [S 4D am Act 17 of 1986; Act 206 of 1978; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4D COMMENTARY Background ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.20] Proposals for Change ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.40] Summary ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.60] Concept: competitive with each other ............................................................................................. [CCA.4D.80] Concept: purpose .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.100] Purpose: relevant time .................................................................................................................. [CCA.4D.120] Concept: restricting or limiting ....................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.140] Concepts: particular persons or classes of persons ..................................................................... [CCA.4D.160] Defences ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.4D.180] Cases ............................................................................................................................................ [CCA.4D.200] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4D.220]

[CCA.4D.20]

Background

The prohibition against exclusionary provisions was inserted in 1977 following recommendation of the Swanson Committee which reported at [4.116] that: We consider that a collective boycott, ie, an agreement that has the purpose of or the effect of or is likely to have the effect of restricting the persons or classes of persons who may be dealt with, or the circumstances in which, or the conditions subject to which, persons or classes of persons may be dealt

108

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4D.80]

s 4D

with by the parties to the agreement, or any of them, or by persons under their control, should be prohibited if it has a substantial adverse effect on competition between the parties to the agreement or any of them or competition between those parties or any of them and other persons. In enacting s 4D the Parliament did not follow the Swanson recommendation precisely. Although provisions dealing with collective boycotts were introduced, they were not limited to circumstances in which the boycott has a substantial adverse effect on competition. Section 4D, as enacted, merely required that there be a provision in a contract, arrangement or understanding between competitors that has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting supply or acquisition of goods or services by any of the participants. Section 45 then declares the relevant provision to be in breach of the Act, regardless of its actual effect on competition. This has led to uncertainty about the scope and effect of the section. [CCA.4D.40]

Proposals for Change

On 5 September 2016 the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including removal of this section and amendments to s 45 to remove references to exclusionary provisions. The Harper Review saw this as removing overlap with the prohibition on cartels. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not removal of this section will be included remains an open question. Summary

The term used in the Act, defined in this section, is “exclusionary provision”, a curious term that simply means a boycott. The definition is relevant to s 45, which provides that exclusionary provisions in contracts, arrangements or understandings are unenforceable and that it is a contravention to give effect to an exclusionary provision, regardless of its effect on competition. The exclusionary requirement is that a contract or arrangement must contain, or some part of an understanding must involve, a purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting: • supply of goods or services by some parties to the contract arrangement or understanding to others; or • acquisition of goods or services by some parties to the contract arrangement or understanding from others. The existence of that exclusionary requirement is only relevant if the contract, arrangement or understanding was made between persons, any two or more of whom are competitive with each other (but not all the participants have to be in competition with each other). Classic examples of exclusionary provisions include competing suppliers deciding not to supply products to, or acquire products from, a specified person, a group of suppliers agreeing on the tenders for which each will bid and suppliers dividing up the market geographically and deciding who will supply which geographic areas. This definition results in s 45 applying to conduct to which the cartel provisions also apply. That is because a cartel includes persons in competition entering arrangements preventing, restricting or limiting supply, allocating supply among the group or agreeing on who is to respond to a bid. [CCA.4D.80]

Concept: competitive with each other

There will not be an exclusionary provision unless the contract arrangement or understanding was made between two or more people who are competitive with each other: s 4D(1)(a). Section 4D(2) deems people to be competitive with each other only if: • they or related bodies corporate are or are likely to be competitive with each other; or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

109

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4D.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4D

[CCA.4D.80]

• they or related bodies corporate would be or would be likely to be competitive with each other but for the contract arrangement or understanding, in relation to the supply or acquisition of all or any of the goods or services to which the relevant provision relates. Although the term “competition” is defined, for the purposes of s 45 , to mean competition in a market and the term “market” is defined in s 4E to mean a market in Australia, this definition does not use the term “competition”. Instead it refers to persons who are “competitive” with each other. In ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304, Besank J decided that, as the provision did not use the term “competition”, there was no need for the ACCC to establish a market in Australia in relation to the alleged contraventions, applying a decision of a Full Court in ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) [1991] FCA 158; (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 that, as s 4D makes no mention of the term “market” and the term “competition” does not appear, s 4D of the prohibition on exclusionary provisions is to be determined by reference to the competitive effect between the parties and other persons, and not by reference to markets. The area of competition has to coincide with the area of contractual restriction: Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128. The likelihood of people being competitive with each other is a question of fact. The term “likely” is to be interpreted in the same manner as in relation to s 45D. It means “a real chance or possibility”: News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521; Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657. See also [CCA.45D.220]. In J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2002] ATPR 41-758, the appellant argued, unsuccessfully, that another freight company which it sought to encourage to lodge a cover bid with one of the appellant’s customers was not competitive with the appellant because the other company had a practice of not tendering against the appellant. [CCA.4D.100]

Concept: purpose

There will not be an exclusionary provision unless the relevant provision of the contract, arrangement or understanding was arrived at for a proscribed purpose. See [CCA.45.240]. [CCA.4D.120]

Purpose: relevant time

The plain words of the section make it clear that the relevant time for determining whether there is an exclusionary provision is when the contract, arrangement or understanding is made. If all of the requirements of s 4D are not present when the contract, arrangement or understanding is entered, then it will not contain an exclusionary provision even if a missing requirement is subsequently fulfilled: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883; South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at 477 (FCR); Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657 at 41,297 (ATPR). [CCA.4D.140]

Concept: restricting or limiting

It is the supply or acquisition of goods or services that, according to s 4D(1)(b) must be restricted or limited, and not the person or classes of persons to whom the section is directed: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824. [CCA.4D.160]

Concepts: particular persons or classes of persons

In order for s 4D to apply, the persons or class of persons must be identified, but the way in which a class of persons is to be identified has not been finally settled.

110

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4D.200]

s 4D

In Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965, Gleeson CJ and Callinan J said:

In Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 2) (1985) 5 FCR 476; 11 IR 44; 58 ALR 373 the primary judge decided that the term required the exclusion to be directed to persons whose identity could be ascertained, rather than to the entirety of a body of persons. However, on appeal Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464; 10 IR 18; 60 ALR 235; [1985] ATPR 40-577 the court did not necessarily accept that view and regarded it as arguable that particular persons could be identified by general description. In News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943, Gummow J noted that it had been accepted in that case, correctly in his opinion, that there may be a “particular class” notwithstanding that at any one time the identity of all of those in the class is not readily ascertainable. In ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 487-488 (FCR), the court held that “particular persons” may be identified by the fact that they were precluded from access to the relevant information unless they accepted the restraints imposed by the agreement under consideration in that case. Although the court commented on this approach in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965, the majority neither approved nor rejected it. In Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965 the High Court decided that all that is necessary is to be able to define the class of persons to whom the exclusionary conduct applied. In that case it was the advertisers and newspaper readers in a particular geographic area. In News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943, Gummow J expressed the view that a “particular class of persons” may be one on, or about whom, the relevant purpose acts or operates. [CCA.4D.180]

Defences

It is a defence to a claim that a firm is a party to an exclusionary provision if the firm can establish that the provision is for the purpose of a joint venture and that the provision does not have the purpose, and does not have and is not likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition: s 76C. [CCA.4D.200] Cases • SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116. In a dispute that arose when a grocery retailer moved from one supplier to another and a claim was made that the agreement between the retailer and the supplier amounted to an exclusionary provision the applicant failed to establish that the supplier and the retailer were in the same market and consequently the requisite position was not established.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

111

CCA ss 1-6AA

The proscribed purpose must still be one that is directed toward particular persons or classes of persons. Parliament did not delete the word “particular” and substitute the word “any”. Nor did it remove all reference to persons as objects of the proscribed purpose. The legislative history, as well as the text, tends strongly against a reading of the section which requires only that a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting, in any way, supply or acquisition. Supply or acquisition will always be to or from persons. Ordinary principles of construction require that the references to particular persons or classes of persons be given work to do; they are not mere drafting verbosity. A court construing a provision in an Act “must strive to give meaning to every word of the provision”. A court will seek to avoid a construction of a statute that renders some of its language otiose. Here, that consideration is powerfully reinforced by the legislative history, which shows that the reference to particular persons was originally an essential feature of s 4D, and that the addition of reference to classes was intended to expand it, not make it superfluous.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4D

[CCA.4D.200] • ACCC v White Top Taxis Ltd [2009] FCA 88; (2009) 253 ALR 449; [2009 ATPR 42-273. The respondent, whose business was providing taxi network services in the Shepparton area, established a roster system that set out shifts for the 21 taxis on its network. Each taxi operator agreed to operate his taxi during the allotted shifts and, with exceptions, not to operate at other times. The purpose of the roster was to ensure the availability of taxis in the Shepparton area during times of low demand and to distribute the burden of working at those times evenly. The purpose of the roster was also to restrict the number of taxis available during times when there would be average and not high demand, in an attempt to share the work available at those times evenly between operators. The arrangement was found to constitute an exclusionary provision in breach of s 45. Penalties totaling $77,000 imposed. • News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. The appellant had entered with the ARL to reduce the number of clubs in the national rugby league competition. The respondent was one of the clubs excluded from the competition. The respondent claimed that the arrangements limiting the number of participating clubs amounted to an exclusionary provision. The High Court held that it was not because its purpose was not to prevent, restrict or limit the supply of goods or services. • Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965. The respondent unsuccessfully argued that a market sharing arrangement under which two newspapers agreed not to distribute in each other’s area was not sufficiently particular concerning who was precluded from acquiring goods or services from either newspaper to come within s 4D. • J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758. The appellant was found to have attempted to make an arrangement which included an exclusionary provision when it sought the agreement of a competitor to put in a non competitive bid to one of its customers. • Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657. The defendant failed to prove that a restrictive covenant in a licence agreement was an exclusionary provision. First, the purpose was found to be to protect the plaintiff’s property rather than to restrict the defendant from competing. Secondly, at the time the agreement was entered the parties were not likely to be in competition with each other. • News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521. The court found that, by entering commitment and loyalty agreements the ARL and its member clubs had entered contracts which contained exclusionary provisions, which they were prohibited by s 45 from giving effect to. • Dunn v Aust Society of CPAs [1996] ATPR 41-461. The applicant failed to prove that by CPA by-laws dealing with the classes of persons with whom members may enter partnership constituted an exclusionary provision because he failed to prove that members were competitive with each other in the area to which the restriction applied. • Gallagher v Pioneer Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd (1993) 46 IR 304; 113 ALR 159; 35 AILR 74; [1993] ATPR 41-216. One hundred and forty five lorry owner/drivers in the concrete cartage industry were found to be parties to an exclusionary provision in breach of s 45(2)(a)(i) and 45(2)(b)(i) in agreeing among themselves to restrict the number of trucks which could enter the business and in rostering trucks to give effect to an equalisation scheme.

[CCA.4D.220]

Further reading

Heydon, Trade Practices Law (Lawbook Co., subscription service), Vol 1 at [4.530] -[4.630]; Drain, “The ‘Bunny’ Boycott: Unfair Trading or Anticompetitive Restraint?” (2002) 10 TPLJ 145.

112

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.20]

4E

s 4E

Market

For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, market means a market in Australia and, when used in relation to any goods or services, includes a market for those goods or services and other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the first-mentioned goods or services. [S 4E am Act 70 of 1990, s 5; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.40] Concept: a market ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.60] The role of substitution .................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.80] The SSNIP or Hypothetical Monopolist test .................................................................................. [CCA.4E.100] Market structure ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.120] Identifying the market .................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.140] Markets: the geographic dimension .............................................................................................. [CCA.4E.160] Markets: the time dimension ......................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.180] Markets: downstream constraints and upstream market .............................................................. [CCA.4E.200] Markets: the functional dimension ................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.220] The product dimension .................................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.240] Submarkets .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.4E.260] Practice and procedure: evidence ................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.280] Practice and procedure: survey evidence ..................................................................................... [CCA.4E.300] Practice and procedure: evidence by economists ........................................................................ [CCA.4E.320] Cases ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.340] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.4E.360]

[CCA.4E.20]

Summary

This section does not go very far in defining what a market is. This is because the term market, when used as an abstract noun in an economic context, is not susceptible of precise comprehensive definition. Too rigid an approach in defining a market is apt to lead to unrealistic results. The function of s 4E is to make it clear that that the markets the Act is concerned with (at least for most of its competition provisions) are markets in Australia. It also provides that a market includes goods and services substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the goods or services under consideration. Defining the term has been left to the courts, drawing on the law of economics. The meaning of the term is important because anti-competitive effects of conduct or arrangements, central to most of the provisions of Pt IV, cannot be assessed without first identifying the market in which the conduct or arrangements are to be tested. The concept of a market has been accurately described by Professor Maureen Brunt as “a tool to facilitate a proper orientation for an analysis of market power”: see Brunt “Market definition issues in Australian and New Zealand trade practices litigation” (1990) 18 ABLR 86 at 126. So what is a market? In the language used by economists and adopted by courts, it is the area of actual and potential, and not purely theoretical, interaction between producers and consumers where, given the right incentive, substitution will occur. It is an abstract concept rather than a physical place where buyers and sellers conduct their transactions. Although the concept may be abstract, markets are not artificial or contrived.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

113

CCA ss 1-6AA

SECTION 4E COMMENTARY

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.20]

The term describes the range of economic activities within which the conduct under investigation is to be assessed, based on findings of fact. In other words, a market is to be identified by an evaluative exercise of investigating close competition in relation to products relevant to that investigation, having regard to economic and commercial reality. This will involve considering the relevant products and those substitutable for them now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, the functions served by those products and the geographic area in which substitution occurs or could occur. The relevant market will include the maximum range of products and the widest geographic area within which, given sufficient economic incentive, buyers or sellers can switch from one product to another. The principles to be applied in identifying a market may be summarised as follows: • The court looks to the field of actual and potential transactions between buyers and sellers amongst whom there can be strong substitution given sufficient price incentive, at least in the long run. • In determining whether such substitution is feasible the court will consider matters such as customer attitudes, technology, distance and cost and price incentives. • The notion of substitutability involves ascertaining the cross-elasticities of both supply and demand which reveal the degree to which one product may be substituted for another in response to price changes. • The process involves both including competitive products or services and excluding products or services which, because of differentiating characteristics, do not compete. Although it is not commonly the case, there can be single product markets, but this depends on the question of substitutability. • In identifying a relevant market the court considers the three dimensions – the product dimension, the functional dimension and the geographic dimension. They are discussed at [CCA.4E.160], [CCA.4E.220] and [CCA.4E.240], but although discussed separately, they are not independent considerations. As to determining how close the competition needs to be, or whether there is sufficient economic incentive to switch, an economic test – the SSNIP test – is often used. This is described at [CCA.4E.100]. [CCA.4E.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that the current definition be retained, but that the definition of “competition” in s 4 be amended to ensure that competition in Australian markets includes competition from goods imported or capable of being imported, and services rendered (or capable of being rendered), by persons not resident or carrying on business in Australia. [CCA.4E.60]

Concept: a market

A market is a tool used by economists to analyse the competitive effect of conduct. It describes, in a metaphorical way, an area of economic activity whose dimensions are function, product and geography, taking into account substitution possibilities on both the supply side and the demand side. A market may be defined functionally by reference to wholesale or retail activities or a combination of both. The concept of product encompasses goods and services and includes the range of goods or services which are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, each other having regard to the nature and characteristics of the products, their function and geography: Australian Gas Light Company v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 (French J); applied, for instance, in Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; 324 ALR 202; [2015] FCAFC 104. Whether or not there are different markets depends on what happens (or would happen) on either the demand or the supply side in response to a change in relative price: TPC v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 299; [1988] ATPR 40-876 (Wilcox J).

114

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.60]

s 4E

The classic explanation of the concept is the following statement by the Trade Practices Tribunal in Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 at 190 (FLR), 17,247-17,246 (ATPR), referred to with approval by the High Court in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925: We take the concept of a market to be basically a very simple idea. A market is the area of close competition between firms or, putting it a little differently, the field of rivalry between them … Within the bounds of a market there is substitution – substitution between one product and another, and between one source of supply and another, in response to changing prices. So a market is the field of actual and potential transactions between buyers and sellers amongst whom there can be strong substitution, at least in the long run, if given a sufficient price incentive. Let us suppose that the price of one supplier goes up. Then on the demand side buyers may switch their patronage from this firm’s product to another, or from this geographic source of supply to another. As well, on the supply side, sellers can adjust their production plans, substituting one product for another in their output mix, or substituting one geographic source of supply for another. Whether such substitution is feasible or likely depends ultimately on customer attitudes, technology, distance, and cost and price incentives.

In Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159 French J explained that: In competition law it has a descriptive and a purposive role. It involves fact finding together with evaluative and purposive selection. In any given application it describes a range of economic activities defined by reference to particular economic functions (eg manufacturing, wholesale or retail sales), the class or classes of products, be they goods or services, which are the subject of those activities and the geographic area within which those activities occur. In its statutory setting the market designation imposes on the activities which it encompasses limits set by the law for the protection of competition. It involves a choice of the relevant range of activity by reference to economic and commercial realities and the policy of the statute. To the extent that it must serve statutory policy, the identification will be evaluative and purposive as well as descriptive. Although the term is an analytical or economic tool – not a feature of the real world a market must be based on findings of fact: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160; [2009] FCAFC 166; Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158 at 174; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159 (French J). Nevertheless, a market has economic and commercial reality. It is not artificial or contrived. Courts will not accept a market definition that is an artificial construct that does not accurately or realistically describe and reflect the interactions between, and perceptions and actions of, the relevant actors or participants in the alleged market, that is, the commercial community involved: ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 236 FCR 78; [2015] ATPR 42-508; (2015) 324 ALR 392; [2015] FCAFC 103; Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; 324 ALR 202; [2015] FCAFC 104. It is not always useful to describe the relationships and arrangements in a market – for example as “horizontal” or “vertical” - by reference to economic jargon not reflected in the language of the Act: Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; [2003] HCA 59 applied, for instance, in Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; 324 ALR 202; [2015] FCAFC 104.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

115

CCA ss 1-6AA

It is the possibilities of such substitution which set the limits upon a firm’s ability to “give less and charge more”. Accordingly, in determining the outer boundaries of the market we ask a quite simple but fundamental question: If the firm were “to give less and charge more” would there be, to put the matter colloquially, much of a reaction? And if so, from whom? In the language of economics the question is this: From which products and which activities could we expect a relatively high demand or supply response to price change, ie, a relatively high cross-elasticity of demand or cross-elasticity of supply?

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E [CCA.4E.80]

[CCA.4E.80] The role of substitution

The relative ease with which substitution between suppliers or buyers may occur is central to the notion of a market. Products will be regarded as “substitutable for or otherwise competitive with” other products where there is reasonable interchangeability of use and high cross-elasticity of demand. In other words, where a small decrease in the price of a particular product would cause a significant quantum of demand for a similar product to switch to the product in question: Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768 (Gyles J); Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. Substitution involves questions of the degree of substitutability. In Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159 at 178 (FCR), French J quoted the following statement from P Areeda and L Kaplow: Antitrust Analysis (4th ed, 1988), p 572: A vast number of firms might have some actual or potential effect on a defendant’s behavior. Many of them, however, will not have a significant effect and we attempt to exclude them from the relevant market in which we appraise a defendant’s power. We try to include in the relevant market only those suppliers – of the same or related product in the same or related geographic area – whose existence significantly restrains the defendant’s power. This process of inclusion and exclusion is spoken of as market definition. In Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061, the court pointed out that: the fact that, upon some occasions, some consumers select one product rather than another does not establish that the two products are “substitutable”, so as to be within a single market. … [I]f for example, a particular company dominated the sale of tea within Australia, it would thwart the objectives of provisions such as ss 46 and 50 … to deny their application, because the company did not dominate the “hot beverage market”. As Emmett J explained in ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967: The merger of two of several producers of a particular product might result in the market for that product being more concentrated … such that the unilateral exercise of significant market power could lead to higher prices. However, in circumstances where cross-elasticity of demand between two products is high, the first product would not constitute a relevant market … because, even if all the producers of that product were to merge into one, the merged producer would still not have the ability to increase and maintain prices above the competitive level and remain profitable. The smallest relevant market would require the inclusion of the producers of both products. Substitution is not an absolute concept. It involves matters of degree. The relevant question is: is the degree of substitution sufficient to conclude that the products are in the same market? As the Court said in Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061: The question of substitutability is not to be disposed of merely by showing that, upon some occasions, some people consume one product rather than another or that some products within a claimed market do not directly compete with some other products in that market, or do compete with some products outside that claim market. Although price is important in determining relative substitutability, it is not the only consideration. A change in what is offered may be as significant as a change in price: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. Prima facie the absence of actual or potential competition in the goods or services in question or their substitutes is an important indication that there is no market: Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. Although market definition comprehends substitution on the demand side and the supply side, as Dawson J pointed out in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925, there was a tendency to place more emphasis on demand side substitutability than on supply side substitutability. Consideration of each is relevant, but in

116

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.100]

s 4E

order to identify a relevant market it is not necessary to establish strong substitutability on both the supply side and the demand side: Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351. From the buyer’s point of view, a market represents a range of goods or services which are good substitutes for one another in satisfying the buyer’s requirements: Re Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd (1977) 28 FLR 385; [1977] ATPR 40-023. [CCA.4E.100]

The SSNIP or Hypothetical Monopolist test

The test involves determining whether a hypothetical monopolist supplier in a market could profitably impose a small but significant non-transitory increase in price (commonly between 5% and 10%) for the supply of relevant products, or whether substitution by buyers or suppliers would make such an increase unprofitable. If the hypothetical monopolist supplier could profitably impose such an increase the market is correctly defined. However, if the hypothetical monopolist supplier could not impose such an increase, a smaller and smaller market must be postulated until a positive answer can be given to the question of whether it could impose the increase profitably. The relevant market is identified as the smallest area, in terms of either product or geographic space, over which a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose a relevant increase in price. If there are several products that compete within the same market, it is the cumulative switching to all those alternative products by consumers that determines whether close demand-side substitutes exist. If the cumulative effect is sufficient to make the relevant increase in price unprofitable, all close substitutes would be included in the market, even if the consumer switching to each individual product in isolation might be insufficient to make the relevant increase in price unprofitable: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967. However, that test can only be applied where data on competitive prices is available, and in any event, can only be used as an aid to focusing the enquiry. Evidence of conduct in the market and opinions of industry participants will be relevant: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. As Sackville J pointed out in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062; [2007] ATPR (Digest) 46-274: The reliable application of the SSNIP test requires sufficient quantitative data to permit the calculation or assessment, in particular, of the competitive price for the product in question. … [It] is the competitive price that provides the starting point for determining whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose a SSNIP. Where the SSNIP test is to be used as part of a qualitative assessment, as the Full Court noted in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160: a qualitative application of the test requires identification of its purpose. As we understand it, the test looks to the actual or likely effect of competitive conduct, or potential competitive conduct, upon price and other conditions of supply, including quality of the product. However competitive conduct may not have an immediate and obvious effect upon those matters. Particularly in a relatively new industry, competitors may be looking for longer term, rather than shorter term, advantages. The “richness” of the concept of competition … means that competition may take many forms. Its effects may be immediate or delayed. The SSNIP test addresses the effects of competition, but it does not define the way in which it occurs.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

117

CCA ss 1-6AA

The SSNIP (meaning a “small but significant non-transitory increase in price”) or hypothetical monopolist test is used to determine the extent of substitution of competing products in a market and therefore the limits of the market, where there is sufficient data available. That test is directed at determining what products, within what geographic area, are likely to be substituted for the products in question if there were a 5% to 10% non-transitory increase in price of the products under consideration: see Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E [CCA.4E.120]

[CCA.4E.120] Market structure

It is necessary to look at the structure of the markets in which they operate in order to determine whether particular corporations are in competition with each other. The relevant elements of market structure are: • the number, size and distribution of independent sellers, especially the degree of market concentration; • the height of barriers to entry, that is, the ease with which new firms may enter and secure a viable market; • the extent to which the products of the industry are characterised by extreme product differentiation and sales promotion; • the character of “vertical relationships” with customers and with suppliers and the extent of vertical integration; and • the nature of any formal, stable and fundamental arrangements between firms which restrict their ability to function as independent entities: Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 at 190 (FLR). In Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 195-196 (CLR), Deane J said: The identification of relevant markets and the definition of market structures and boundaries … involves value judgements, about which there is some room for legitimate differences of opinion. The economy is not divided into an identifiable number of discrete markets into one or other of which all trading activities can be neatly fitted. One overall market may overlap with one or more others. The outer limits … of a particular market are likely to be blurred … [CCA.4E.140]

Identifying the market

Although it is relatively easy to describe a market, at least in a general sense, it is often difficult to identify and define the nature and parameters of a particular market in any given circumstance: ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. Nevertheless, it is the delineation of relevant markets that enables the necessary processes of competition to be assessed, so identification of the relevant market is an essential step in the analysis of conduct which might be thought to breach a number of the provisions of Pt IV of the Act. Identification of relevant markets involves value judgements about which there may be differing opinions. As Deane J said in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 195 (CLR), 50,012 (ATPR): [the word “market”] is not susceptible of precise comprehensive definition when used as an abstract noun in an economic context. The most that can be said is that “market” should, in the context of the Act, be understood in the sense of an area of potential close competition in particular goods and/or services and their substitutes. Market definition is the recognition and use of an economic tool or instrumental concept related to market power, constraints on power and the competitive process which is best adapted to analyse the asserted anti-competitive conduct. It is not an exact physical exercise to identify a physical feature of the world; nor is it the enquiry after the nature of some form of essential existence: ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 826; [2006] ATPR 42-123 (Allsop J); ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. In Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 187 (CLR), 50,008 (ATPR), Mason CJ and Wilson J approached the identification of the market in the following manner: [T]he object is to discover the degree of the defendant’s market power. Defining the market and evaluating the degree of power in that market are part of the same process, and it is for the sake of simplicity of analysis that the two are separated. Accordingly, if the defendant is vertically integrated,

118

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.160]

s 4E

the relevant market for determining degree of market power will be at the product level which is the source of that power … After identifying the appropriate product level, it is necessary to describe accurately the parameters of the market in which the defendant’s product competes: too narrow a description of the market will create the appearance of more market power than in fact exists; too broad a description will create the appearance of less market power than there is … The process of defining the market by substitution involves both including products which compete with the defendant’s and excluding those which because of differentiating characteristics do not compete.

In Re Tooth & Co Ltd (1979) 39 FLR 1; [1979] ATPR 40-113, the Tribunal stated that the principles applicable in attempting to delineate a market are as follows: • It is first necessary to identify the areas of close competition relevant to the matter under consideration. • The market should comprehend the maximum range of business activities and the widest geographic area within which, given a sufficient economic incentive, buyers can switch from one supply source to another and sellers from one production flow to another. • The long-run substitution possibilities are of importance rather than the short-term transitory ones. • At the extremities of the market there is such a break in substitution possibilities that firms within its boundaries would collectively possess substantial market power. • Within the bounds of the market substitution possibilities may be more or less intense and more or less immediate; the field of substitution is not necessarily homogeneous but may contain within it submarkets such that their competitive relationship have a wider effect upon the functioning of the market as a whole. • The market is a multi-dimensional concept – with dimensions of product, functional level, space and time. [CCA.4E.160]

Markets: the geographic dimension

The section provides that, unless the contrary intention appears, the term “market” refers to a market in Australia. The only exception is s 50. For merger purposes a relevant market may, geographically, encompass the whole of Australia, or a State, Territory or region of Australia: s 50(6). The geographic dimension of a market is the area in which sellers and buyers compete effectively. As the Australian Competition Tribunal pointed out in Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2 at [1022] to [1024]: What is relevant, as a starting point, are actual sales patterns, the location of customers and the place where sales take place, and any geographical boundaries that limit trade. But it is not sufficient to measure only historical and current market behaviour. It is also necessary to consider whether customers would readily turn to more remote suppliers in response to a price increase by local suppliers or whether remote suppliers would choose to enter the local market. In the United States, geographic markets are occasionally defined based on shipment flows. Under this method … the geographic market is defined as the smallest insular region into which few products have come from the outside and from which few shipments go outside … This is a neat approach, provided one bears in mind that it can either understate or overstate the regions that would be defined based on

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

119

CCA ss 1-6AA

Identification of the relevant market is a focusing process. The court must select what emerges as the clearest picture of the relevant competitive process in the light of commercial reality and the purposes of the law: Economic and commercial reality is required. It cannot be artificial or contrived. Economists frequently construct economic models to analyse complex commercial or economic events or scenarios. But a model is unlikely to be a useful analytical tool if based on unrealistic assumptions that materially depart from the real world facts and circumstances: Economic theory cannot be permitted to do violence to commercial reality: ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. See also ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103; Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC [2015] FCAFC 104.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.160]

buyer substitution. A more recent (and increasingly popular) approach is to define a market as a group of products and a corresponding geographic area within which a hypothetical monopolist would be able to raise prices profitably. From a geographic perspective, a market corresponds to the commercial realities of the industry under consideration and also represents an economically significant area of trade, taking into account realistic trade patterns. The following passage from Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation (Mathew Bender, New York, 1981), Vol 3 at [18-96], was quoted with approval by the Federal Court in Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC [1989] ATPR 40-932 at 50,011: Any geographic market … must be one that both corresponds to the commercial realities of the industry and represents an economically significant trade area. Because a geographic market determination looks to actual trade patterns, it is not required that geographical boundaries be drawn with exactitude … Obviously the drawing of any line to define the geographic market is an arbitrary exercise which will never be completely correct. There will always be a certain fuzziness about it: Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC [1989] ATPR 40-932 (Sheppard J). See also Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304 at 42,091 (ATPR); ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 116; [2001] ATPR 41-804 at 42,736, [103] (ATPR). In considering the geographic dimension to a market, supply side considerations must, be taken into account. For instance, where transport costs are a significant factor in the cost of goods those costs will be important in determining the geographic ambit of the market: Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC [1989] ATPR 40-932 at 50,092; Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304 at 42,094 (ATPR). Demand side considerations are also relevant. For instance, in Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768; a case relating to hospitality packages at international rugby union test matches, Gyles J stated that he would have been inclined to have included events in Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne. Section 4E makes it clear that the only markets relevant for the purposes of the Act are markets “in Australia”, so a market that is wholly outside Australia is not relevant: Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136; (2009) 260 ALR 244; [2009] ATPR 42-297; ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266; Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351; ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 (Perram J). However, the existence of a global market extending into the geographic boundaries of Australia does not preclude a finding that there may be a market in Australia. All that is required is that the relevant market not be wholly out of Australia: ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42; Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1464; [2009] ATPR 42-302; (on appeal Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351); Riverstone Computer Services Pty Ltd v IBM Global Financing Australia Ltd [2002] FCA 1608. In ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266 and ACCC v British Airways plc [2008] FCA 1977; [2008] ATPR 42-265 Lindgren J accepted that the court had jurisdiction to deal with a global cartel because part of the admitted global international air cargo market necessarily fell within the territorial boundaries of Australia. However, the position would seem to be more complicated than that. In Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1464; [2009] ATPR 42-302 Tracey J made the following comment: In order for there to be a “market in Australia”, it is necessary for competitive activity to occur within Australia. … Competitive activity can take many forms. It may involve advertising campaigns by the suppliers of particular goods or services by which they attempt to attract customers. It may involve the efficiency with which services are provided or attempts to provide higher quality products. Firms may also compete by offering better quality after-sales service, or in ensuring the ready availability of spare

120

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.200]

s 4E

parts. These competitive activities may take place within a geographic market even though contracts for the provision of the goods or services are negotiated or entered into elsewhere. In many cases, negotiations between seller and buyer will take place in a competitive environment in Australia and contracts will be signed here. When, however, there is a global or international market of which Australia forms part, it is possible for competitive activity … to take place in Australia even though contractual arrangements are formalised overseas. In Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136; (2009) 260 ALR 244; [2009] ATPR 42-297, a case dealing with a challenge to the scope of a s 155 notice, the full court observed that “prices fixed for legs of a journey which take[s] place wholly outside Australia may ultimately affect competition in a market in Australia” and on that basis refused to find that the notice fell outside the power conferred by s 155. However, as Perram J pointed out in ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, “the ‘market in Australia’ requirement is quite different to the effects doctrine in the United States where a price effect in the United States will suffice to bring that legislation into play. That is not what the Trade Practices Act 1974 does”. A full court in ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 noted that, for this reason, reliance on US authorities would be inappropriate. As Dowsett and Edelman JJ observed in ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 at [90] to [91], taking a much broader view of the relevant market, in many cases the geographical dimension of a market might easily resolve the question whether or not the market is “in Australia”, but:

The identification of the “market” and the characterisation of whether it is in Australia are therefore flexible questions which require evaluative judgement in light of the purpose of the relevant provision. That view accords with supports the earlier expressed view that the place a contract, arrangement or understanding is made is not determinative of the geographic locality of the relevant market. If, for instance, some marketing and negotiating occurs in Australia that is a relevant consideration: Emirates v ACCC [2009] FCA 312; (2009) 255 ALR 35 (Middleton J); Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1464; [2009] ATPR 42-302 (Tracey J). Equally, it would be erroneous to think that the sphere of operation of a service is conclusive in determining the geographic dimension of a market: ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42. [CCA.4E.180]

Markets: the time dimension

Markets are not to be determined by a view frozen in time or by observations based on short run time scales: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966; Re Macquarie Generation and AGL Energy Ltd [2014] ACompT 1. It is long-run substitution rather than short-run substitution which is important in determining the limits of a market. If a product may be substituted in the short term, it is clear that the market includes the substitute, but for longer term substitution, it is questions, such as how long it will take for substitution to be likely to occur and in what circumstances, which will determine the issue: see Walker, “Product Market Definition in Competition Law” (1980) 11 FL Rev 386; Norman and Williams, “The Analysis of Market and Competition under the Trade Practices Act: Towards Resolution of Some Hitherto Unresolved Issues” (1983) 11 ABLR 396. [CCA.4E.200]

Markets: downstream constraints and upstream market

The behaviour of participants at one functional level may have a substantial constraining effect on the behaviour of participants at another functional level that is sufficient to warrant the inclusion of all those activities in the market the subject of attention: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151; (2011)

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

121

CCA ss 1-6AA

it would be an error to approach the question of characterisation simply by asking whether one dimension of the market was “in Australia”. The entire market must be considered, and the other dimensions may be relevant to the question.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.200]

198 FCR 297. This proposition was considered by Perram J in ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, a price-fixing case, without reaching any conclusion because there was a lack of evidence in relation to it. [CCA.4E.220]

Markets: the functional dimension

Firms supplying the same goods or services, in the same geographic area, but operating at different functional levels, will not be in the same market. Consequently, wholesalers will, for instance, be in a separate market to the retailers they supply and a mortgage broker will be in a market separate from that in which the bank it represents operates: Australian Gas Light Co v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 (French J); SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116 (Griffiths J); ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 (Dowsett J). Agents may generally operate in a different market to the airlines whose services they represent, but if the agency agreement allows the agent sufficient autonomy in setting the price of the products they sell, the facts may establish that principals and agents are competing in the same market for sale of those products: ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. The Australian Competition Tribunal considered, in Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136, the position of vertically integrated firms in the context of determining the impact of functional separation in determining market boundaries. The Tribunal made the following points: • The presence of vertical separation may be sufficient to conclude that there is a separate functional market. Evidence of actual market transactions by vertically separate firms is strong evidence of the existence of separate functional markets. But some care must be taken in reaching that conclusion. There may be unusual circumstances, such as where there are very few market transactions, to negative the conclusion of a separate market. • If there is a separate functional market, the next question is: should the in-house producer be included in that market? The in-house producer should be included in the dependent market if a hypothetical monopolist of vertically separated supply could not profitably increase its price. • Another question that arises is: should two stages of the supply chain be “collapsed” into the same functional market? When activity at one functional level (e.g. retail) constrains activity at another level (e.g. wholesale), one may ask whether transactions at the two levels should be treated as being in the same market. We believe, however, that it is preferable to find there to be separate markets, otherwise the market would consist of some firms that compete with each other (e.g. the vertically integrated retailer and the vertically separated retailers) and others that do not (e.g. the vertically separated wholesalers and the vertically separated retailers). This would be at odds with a commercial view of markets, as vertically separated suppliers at the two levels would not see themselves as part of a combined market. It would also be at odds with the approach taken to determining product and geographic markets, where the aim is to include substitution possibilities within the same market and exclude other products and geographic areas. In any event, as the two functions are usually complements and not substitutes, they ought not to be included in the same market. Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304 provides a good example of how the courts will approach the functional dimension of market definition. Drummond J explained the approach as follows at 42,097, 42,099 (ATPR): The question is: given the constraining influence that the [grocery] chains will undoubtedly exercise on the pricing freedom of the merged firm, should they be included in or excluded from the market. … In my opinion, if the large number of consumers of groceries who buy from the independent retailers can be taxed with a price rise of the order of 2% or so, over the entire range of groceries sold by those retailers which they would not be exposed to but for the merger, that is a sufficient detriment to justify the conclusion … that there is a discrete market whose boundaries comprise sales of groceries by independent wholesalers to independent retailers within the geographic area identified by him.

122

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.240]

s 4E

[CCA.4E.240] The product dimension As with the other dimensions, the product dimension involves considering what goods or services are reasonably substitutable for the goods or services under consideration. Substitutability involves matters of degree. To take an example provided by the court in Arnotts Ltd v TPC [1990] FCA 473; 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41, there are many people who sometimes drink tea and, at other times, coffee. But if, for example, a particular company dominated the sale of tea within Australia, it would thwart the objectives of the Act to deny its application because that company did not dominate the “hot beverage market”. The fact is that tea and coffee are distinct beverages, for each of which there is a distinct demand. A rise in the price of tea would probably cause few consumers to abandon tea for coffee. In that case the question was whether the relevant product market was biscuits or whether, within the biscuit category, there were a series of separate markets (eg sweet biscuits, dry biscuits). After considering a substantial amount of evidence, the trial judge decided that the product market was biscuits and that finding was upheld on appeal. As the Australian Competition Tribunal pointed out in Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2, in considering the product dimension, substitution is to be considered from both the demand side and the supply side. As the Tribunal said at [1018] to [1021]: the notion of substitution refers on the demand side, to a customer’s practical ability to switch from one product to another and, on the supply side, to the capacity of a supplier to switch production from one product to another. There are various conventional approaches to determining substitutability. The first significant approach … is the “reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-[price] elasticity of demand between product itself and substitutes for it” … Cross-price elasticity of demand measures the extent to which consumers will change their consumption of a product in response to a price change in another product. A high cross-price elasticity value suggests that products are good substitutes and are probably in the same product market. Reasonable interchangeability of use is established by looking at actual and potential buyer substitution patterns. Relevant evidence will include product characteristics (including differences in grade or quality), price differences (including price trends), past buyer responses, the views of firms regarding who their competitors are, and the existence or absence of different distribution channels. On the supply side, cross-price elasticity is also relevant. Products will be in the same market if a firm can readily switch production from one product to another. What is important is the ease with which the switch can take place. It may be immaterial that consumers do not regard the products as substitutes, that a price difference exists, or that the prices are not closely correlated. There are early cases which recognised single product markets but they predated s 4E and are no longer recognised as authoritative: see Top Performance Motors Pty Ltd v Ira Berk (Qld) Pty Ltd (1975) 24 FLR 286; 5 ALR 465; [1975] ATPR 40-004; Ah Toy J Pty Ltd v Thiess Toyota Pty Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 271; [1980] ATPR 40-155. Section 4E provides that a market includes not just the product under consideration but also those which are “substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with”, those products. This process of defining a market by

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

123

CCA ss 1-6AA

Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, there is no reason why a market cannot be defined by reference to multiple functional levels. It might be appropriate to do so where downstream activities function to constrain upstream behaviour. Whether that is so depends on the facts presented for consideration and the evaluation of those facts by the relevant decision-maker: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151; (2011) 198 FCR 297; [2011] ATPR 42-380. As a practical matter, the views and practices of those in an industry can often be most instructive, on the question of achieving a realistic definition of the market: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 10; (2003) 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609. The best evidence of the dimensions of a market may be the behaviour of those in the particular trade at the relevant functional level: Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809; Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.240]

substitution involves both including products which compete with the defendant’s and excluding those which because of differentiating characteristics do not compete: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] HCA 6 (Mason CJ and Wilson J). Prima facie the absence of actual or potential competition in the goods or services in question or their substitutes is an important indication that there is no market: Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. It is accordingly clear that, applying the accepted tests, it is still possible for a single product to be found to constitute a market, but this will be a rare occurrence. As was said in Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809 (Wilcox J): There may be cases where a particular product, or brand of products, is so distinctive that no other product or brand is seen by consumers as a possible substitute. In such a case the “market” is constituted by the trade in that product or brand of products. Perhaps more frequently other products or brands present realistic alternatives; in which case they also will be within the relevant market. In Regents Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 218; 42 IPR 421; [1988] ATPR 41-647, R D Nicholson J considered whether there was a separate market for Subaru spare parts and concluded that there was not, although his Honour said (at 228): [T]here is no a priori reason why a single brand market cannot be established at law. Whether it can be will depend on the precise evidence in the particular case and, in Australia, proper regard being given to s 4E of the Act with its consequent attention to the supply side as well as the demand side of the market. EXAMPLE • ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 113. The trial judge found, in a s 46 case in the pharmaceutical industry, that the product market was a specific class of prescription medicine – atorvastatin – rather than pharmaceuticals more broadly. • ACCC v Fila Sport Oceania Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 376; [2004] ATPR 41-983; [2004] Aust Contract R 90-192. This case involved allegations of breaches of ss 46 and 47 in relation to the respondent’s marketing of Australian rules apparel. Heerey J found that “apparel of one team would not be regarded as substitutable for apparel of another” and that there were therefore separate markets for apparel for each team. • Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. The Federal Court rejected a submission that the supply of educational services by the Institute to accountancy students who wished to be certified by the Institute amounted to a market. The market was found to be the provision of such services for certification as an accountant, thereby including CPA certification in the market. • Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768. Gyles J “had little difficulty in concluding, as a matter of fact”, that there was no relevant interchangeability between different recognised sports because each had its distinct identity with its own special characteristics appealing to its own players and fans. • Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 633; 33 FCR 158; (1992) ATPR 41-159; [1991] FCA 621. A full court decided that the relevant product market was island holiday packages rather than for holiday packages to the Maldives as the respondent had submitted.

[CCA.4E.260]

Submarkets

In approaching the identification of the relevant market in any particular case, there will often be products or services identified in the course of the market analysis which compete more closely than others, or which compete only in a given geographic area. Where is the boundary of the market to be drawn? If it is 124

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.260]

s 4E

drawn by delineation of the products in close competition or in a limited geographic area, then the boundary of the market may be regarded as too narrow for the proper application of the rules against anti-competitive behaviour set out in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. As the High Court observed in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 187-188 (CLR), 582 (ALR), 50,008 (ATPR): [T]oo narrow a description of the market will create the appearance of more market power than in fact exists; too broad a description will create the appearance of less market power than there is. One technique used to deal with this problem is the concept of a submarket. In Re Tooth & Co Ltd (1979) 39 FLR 1; [1979] ATPR 40-113 at 39 (FLR), 18,197 (ATPR), the Tribunal had to consider whether the relevant market, in relation to brewery hotel ties, should be described broadly by reference to all alcoholic beverages, more narrowly by reference to beer, or even more narrowly still by reference to bulk beer. In concluding that beer made up the relevant market, the Tribunal said (FLR at 39; ATPR at 18,197):

In Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 at 191 (FLR) cited with approval in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 199 (CLR) per Dawson J, the Tribunal pointed out that the distinction between markets and submarkets can be merely a matter of degree. The Tribunal said: Submarkets are the more narrowly defined, typically registering some discontinuity in substitution possibilities. Where the defining feature of a market is the existence of close substitutes (whether in demand or supply) the defining feature of a submarket is the existence of still closer and more immediate substitutes. Submarkets may be especially useful in registering the short-run effects of change; but they may be misleading if used uncritically to assess long-run competitive effects. The indicia of submarkets listed in the American case Brown Shoe Co Inc v United States 370 US 294 (1962) are suggestive: “The boundaries of such a submarket may be determined by examining such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product’s peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialised vendors.” But although it may be helpful to refer to such a list, it does not follow that it is exhaustive, nor that an area or product must meet all or a large number of these tests to be classified as a submarket. In ACCC v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800; (2001) 115 FCR 442; 201 ALR 502; [2002] ATPR 41-855 at [350] (ATPR), Hill J said: There is a problem in my view with the concept of sub-market in Australian competition law. In so far as the Act requires delineation of markets, for example, in the application of s 46 or s 50 of the Act, a factual finding as to the relevant market is all that is required. So, the question of market power relevant to s 46 of the Act, for example, requires consideration of market power in the market, not market power in some sub-market. What can be said, however, is that the delineation of sub-markets can be useful as pointing to a particular characteristic, a structural dimension, of the market, ie how the market works, once the market has been defined. I accept the view of Professor Brunt in her useful article “Market Definition Issues in Australian and New Zealand Trade Practices Litigation” (1990) 18 ABLR 86 at 117 that the concept of sub-market in Australian jurisprudence is a “tool of analysis and not … an element of a legal standard to attract liability”.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

125

CCA ss 1-6AA

[W]ithin the boundaries of the market, substitution possibilities may be more or less intense, and more or less immediate: the field of substitution is not necessarily homogeneous but may contain within it submarkets wherein competition is especially close or especially immediate. There may be, too, certain key submarkets such that their competitive relationships have a wider effect upon the functioning of the market as a whole.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E [CCA.4E.280]

[CCA.4E.280] Practice and procedure: evidence

The best evidence of the dimensions of the relevant market may well be the behaviour of people in the market at the functional level under consideration: Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809; Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304. Economists frequently construct economic models to analyse complex commercial or economic events or scenarios. But a model is unlikely to be a useful analytical tool if based on unrealistic assumptions that materially depart from the real world facts and circumstances: ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. Evidence of the structure and operation of markets other than those pleaded in the case before the court may be relevant in the sense envisaged by s 55(1) of the Evidence Act 1995; being evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. However, the weight that will ultimately be given will depend on the extent of the similarity established: ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1363. [CCA.4E.300]

Practice and procedure: survey evidence

One problem which arises in relation to identification of the market in a practical sense relates to the traditional methods of collecting and presenting evidence. In many cases it will prove difficult to identify the relevant market without resort to scientifically gathered survey evidence. Regrettably, there has been a reluctance on the part of the court to admit survey evidence over the objections of opposing counsel. This problem may be overcome if a party seeking to call survey evidence has the methodology approved by the court in advance. In Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1991) 102 ALR 379; 21 IPR 373; [1991] ATPR 41-124; [1991] AIPC 90-819, Sheppard J carefully summarised the position in Australia and overseas in relation to the admissibility of survey evidence and said (ATPR at 52,832): Certainly I think it wise that surveys should be conducted on notice to the opposite side, that attempts be made to conduct surveys jointly and that the court, in appropriate cases, exercise some supervision in relation to the formulation of the questions and the manner in which the survey is to be conducted. The major objection to the presentation of survey evidence is that it is hearsay and does not, by its very nature, permit a testing of the evidence gathered. In Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061, the Federal Court accepted that properly collected and presented survey evidence should be admitted. The court said (FCR at 360-361): [I]n a civil case in which a market survey may cast light on relevant issues, it is desirable in principle to admit into evidence a report of a professionally conducted survey, upon proof that it has been satisfactorily conducted using relevant and unambiguous questions; and without requiring evidence from each of the participants. In State Government Insurance Corp v GIO (NSW) (1991) 28 FCR 511; 101 ALR 259; 21 IPR 65; [1991] ATPR 41-110; [1991] ASC 56-067, French J declined to accept that a survey presented in that case was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of drawing any positive conclusions. In Shoshana Pty Ltd v 10th Cantanae Pty Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 285; 79 ALR 279; 11 IPR 249; [1987] ATPR 40-851, Burchett J carefully reviewed the position in relation to the admissibility of survey evidence but was not called upon to determine the issue as the facts sought to be proven were established by other means. In TV-am plc v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 85; 3 BR 184; [1988] ATPR 40-891, Einfeld J admitted survey evidence in relation to random sampling to determine whether a television programme was known in Australia.

126

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.320]

s 4E

In Greynell Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter Douglas Ltd (1979) 4 TPR 173, the applicant agreed to waive objections under the hearsay rule to a market survey proposed to be conducted by the respondent provided that: • the respondent established that the survey was designed and conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research producing a result which was trustworthy, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing): – that the proper universe was examined; – that a representative sample was drawn from that universe; – that the persons conducting the survey were recognised experts; – that the data gathered was accurately recorded; and – that the questionnaire, sample design and interviewing were in accordance with generally accepted standards of objective procedure and statistics in the field of such surveys; and • a complete record of: – the methods by which the universe and sample were selected, and of the techniques employed for selecting and instructing the interviewers, and the experience of those interviewers; – any data underlying the survey, methods of interpretation and conclusions reached; – the responses to the survey; – any tests applied and the results of any tests applied to determine the extent to which the survey or results of the survey could be trusted; – the nature of and results of any order applied in connection with the survey; and – the method employed in assigning the answers to open-ended questions to categories, was supplied to the applicant in reasonable time in advance of the hearing; and • such persons as were involved in the conduct of the survey were, if required by the applicant, called by the respondent as witnesses in the proceeding. See also Broderbund Software Inc v Computermate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 22 IPR 215; [1992] ATPR 41-155; Customglass Boats Ltd v Salthouse Bros Ltd [1976] 1 NZLR 36; [1976] RPC 589; Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union of Australia (1987) 15 FCR 31; 18 IR 68; 71 ALR 501; [1987] ATPR 40-766; Lego System Aktieselskab v Lego M Lemelstrich Ltd [1983] FSR 155; TPC v Arnotts Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-979. [CCA.4E.320]

Practice and procedure: evidence by economists

It is not uncommon for parties to call economists to assist the court in identifying the relevant market and this has become accepted practice: see, for instance, QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) (1993) 42 FCR 255; 114 ALR 579; [1993] ATPR 41-226; Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304. However, in TPC v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 299; [1988] ATPR 40-876, Wilcox J made the following comment on that practice: I deprecate the course … of supplying to economists proofs of the evidence to be given by other witnesses and then eliciting from those economists opinions as to the proper conclusion upon the definition of the market. Economists are able to assist the court in relation to economic principles. But, once the relevant principles are expounded, their application to the fact of the case is a matter for the court. The proper definition of a market is entirely a matter of fact, the determination of which ought not to be made more protracted and expensive by the adduction of unnecessary expert evidence.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

127

CCA ss 1-6AA

In Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768, Gyles J admitted evidence of the results of a survey conducted to determine the level of price responsiveness among clients of hospitality services.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.320]

It is not entirely clear to the author why it is that economists are unable to give expert testimony in the same way as other expert witnesses. Extensive evidence from economists was accepted by the court and relied on in QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) (1993) 42 FCR 255; 114 ALR 579; [1993] ATPR 41-226. In Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768, Gyles J admitted evidence of a professor in econometrics on issues relating to the relevant market. The evidence of an economist called by the opposing party was found to be of doubtful admissibility because it was argumentative as to mixed questions of fact and law. However, this criticism appears to relate to the way in which the party who called the economist chose to lead the economist’s evidence, rather than a criticism of the use of economists or the expertise of the economist concerned. [CCA.4E.340]

Cases

The following cases illustrate the approach of the courts to the issue of “market” definition: • ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. The respondent, a travel agent, was found to have competed in the market for the sale of international airline tickets even though the respondent was the agent for the airlines concerned in relation to those sales because it had sufficient autonomy in its agency relationship to be a competitor with its principals. • ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42. This case involved price fixing in relation to air freight to Australia from other countries. The question was whether or not the conduct occurred in a market in Australia. A majority (Dowsett and Edelman JJ) held that it did, but note the strong logic of the dissenting opinion of Yates J. • ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. A claim that the respondent had engaged in price-fixing by including in its broker agreements a clause prohibiting commission rebates was unsuccessful because the court concluded that the bank and the brokers operated in different markets. • Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC [2015] FCAFC 104. On appeal, the appellant succeeded in establishing that it had not engaged in price-fixing in its dealings with airlines for which it was an agent because the appellant and the airlines were not operating in the same market. • ACCC v Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd [2012] FCA 1395. For the purpose of the proceedings only, the parties accept that the relevant markets included outbound freight from Indonesia to Australia, inbound freight to Indonesia from Australia and freight from Australia to the Middle East. They also accept that each of those markets was a “market” within the meaning of s 4E. • SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116. In a dispute that arose when a grocery retailer moved from one supplier to another and a claim was made that the agreement between the retailer and the supplier amounted to an exclusionary provision, the applicant failed to establish that the supplier and the retailer were in the same market. As the relevant parties were not in the same market, a claim that they had entered an anticompetitive agreement also failed. • ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261. This case related to misuse of market power in the taxi industry. It was common ground that there were a number of relevant markets, including a market for payment of taxi fares by credit card. Payment of taxi fares by cash or other non-cash payment methods were not close substitutes because the payment instruments for taxis had unique characteristics such as a reduced risk of fraud or misuse, ease of transferability between drivers and a limit on what could be purchased with the instruments. There was also a market for the supply of services for acceptance of taxi specific non-cash instruments, credit and debit and government subsidy instruments in taxis. There were no close substitutes for manual processing other than electronic processing, and vice-versa. Cabcharge had the largest market share, with its payment processing systems being used in approximately 95% of taxis in Australia.

128

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s 4E

• ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266. This case related to an international cartel to impose a fuel surcharge on air freight. The agreed statement of facts stated the relevant market to be a worldwide market for air cargo services, including, but not limited to, the carriage of cargo by air to and from Australia. See also ACCC v British Airways plc [2008] FCA 1977; (2008) ATPR 42-265. However, in Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1464; [2009] ATPR 42-302, a strike out application case, Tracey J observed that the pleading indicated multiple markets for international air freight services throughout the world and in Australia, rather than a global freight market. • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. This case related to refusal to allow an electricity generator in the Northern Territory access to transmission and distribution. The relevant markets were found to be the electricity supply market and the electricity sales market. • Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. This case related to the sale of compact disks. The court accepted that the relevant market was the Australia-wide wholesale market for recorded music in Australia, rather than a market for compact disks alone or for compact disks directed to separate market sectors. • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [2003] ATPR 41-935. The relevant market was found to be the market for wholesale sale and purchase of bread in Victoria, rather than a market for the sale and purchase of bread in Victoria. • ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945. In a case of alleged price fixing by medical practitioners Carr J decided that, as it would require a significant change in price for medical practitioners of one discipline to change to another, the respective disciplines were in separate markets. The relevant geographic market was found not to be State-wide, but rather, an area including the Perth metropolitan area and surrounding districts. On the demand side the market was regarded as a market for supply of medical services to private patients in public hospitals. • ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 116; [2001] ATPR 41-804. The court decided that the relevant market was the market for the provision of news and advertising by regional newspapers. This seems a somewhat narrow “market” definition especially given the influence of regional radio and television. See Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965. • ACCC v Boral Ltd [2001] FCA 30; (2001) 106 FCR 328; [2001] ATPR 41-803. The court at first instance found the relevant market to be a market for materials used in the construction of walls and paving. On appeal the court held that the relevant market was the wholesale market for concrete masonry products in the Melbourne area. In doing so the court emphasised the concept of “close competition”. • Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823; (2000) 173 ALR 702; [2000] ATPR 41-768. The respondent sought to promote hospitality packages which included tickets to rugby union games. The applicant sought to restrain the sales on the basis that the terms on which it sold tickets included that they were not to be resold. The respondent claimed that this was anti-competitive, arguing that the relevant market was for rugby matches organised by the applicant. The court was inclined to accept that “market” definition, but did not do so due to lack of evidence. • Robert Hicks Pty Ltd (t/a Auto Fashions Aust) v Melway Publishing Pty Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 627; [1999] ATPR 41-668. This case concerned cancellation of the distributorship for a Melbourne street directory. The court found the market to be a market for street directories in Melbourne rather than a national street directory market. Although not a single product market, the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

129

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4E.340]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4E

[CCA.4E.340]

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

130

respondent held a market share of 80% to 90%. Upheld on appeal: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. Regents Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 218; 42 IPR 421; [1998] ATPR 41-647. The court found, on the facts, that spare parts for Subaru vehicles was not a market, nor was there a separate market for appointment as an authorised dealer for servicing Subaru vehicles. Morwood v Chemdata Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-629. This case involved an allegation of misuse of market power in either the “dispensary software market” or the “prescription data market” in the context of a dispute over a computer program developed for pharmacies. The court concluded that the market was really a market for business database software or business stock control software. Plume v Federal Airports Corp [1997] ATPR 41-589. The court found, in the context of a dispute between the owner of Alice Springs airport and a bus operator, that the respondent had a substantial degree of power in the Northern Territory in the market for airport services. Re Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 225; [1995] ATPR 41-438. This case involved a merger authorisation application in the grocery industry. The Tribunal concluded that there was an Australia-wide market for the distribution of grocery products but distinguished two wholesale submarkets – the New South Wales region and the Victorian region. Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304. The court found the relevant market, in a challenge to a takeover offer by one grocery wholesaler for another, to be the market for the supply of grocery products by independent wholesalers to independent retailers in Queensland and northern New South Wales. Petty v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-263. The court found, in a s 46 case relating to liquor supply, that to define the “relevant market” as a market for discount sales of liquor was too narrow. Upheld on appeal Petty v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 282; [1994] ATPR 41-320. Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255. The court found the relevant market to be the market for newsagents’ supplies. General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164; 117 ALR 629; [1993] ATPR 41-274. This case involved the printing contracts for the Yellow Pages. The court found the relevant market to be an Australian directory market rather than the advertising market. Aut 6 Pty Ltd v Wellington Place Pty Ltd [1993] ATPR 41-202. This case involved the cancellation of a distributorship for Mercedes-Benz in Western Australia. The applicant pleaded a luxury car market for vehicles over a specified value. The court was not convinced that, on the evidence, such a market existed. Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167. This case involved rival suburban newspapers competing for real estate advertising. The court found that the relevant market was a market in which real estate agents, predominantly in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, acquired advertising services. Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165. This case involved refusal by pastoral companies to allow an auctioneer to use their sale yards. The market was found to be one for livestock sales rather than livestock auctions. Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159. This case involved an action under s 46 in relation to package tours. The court had to decide whether package tours to the Maldives constituted a market. It decided that the relevant market was for island holiday destinations.

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4E.360]

s 4F

• Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061 the court had to decide whether the relevant market was the market for biscuits or the market for snack foods. The court decided that the relevant market was the market for biscuits. • Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. This was a s 46 case involving supply of steel for making star stakes for rural fencing. The High Court upheld the finding at first instance that the relevant market was the market for steel and steel products. • Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809. This case related to the wholesaling of a major brand of ski boots. Wilcox J held that the relevant market was the ski boot market. • Re Tooth & Co Ltd (1979) 39 FLR 1; [1979] ATPR 40-113. The Tribunal had to consider whether the relevant market, in relation to brewery hotel ties, should be described broadly by reference to all alcoholic beverages, more narrowly by reference to beer, or more narrowly still by reference to bulk beer. It concluded that beer made up the relevant market. • Re Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd (1977) 28 FLR 385; [1977] ATPR 40-023. The Tribunal concluded that there was a national market for towage services in ports around Australia rather than separate markets in each port. In ACCC v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-462, an interlocutory injunction case, the court concluded that there was a serious question to be tried concerning whether there were separate markets in each port for towage services. Further reading

For an analysis of the term “market” in Australian competition law, see Walker, “Product Market Definition in Competition Law” (1980) 11 FL Rev 386; Brunt, “‘Market Definition’ Issues in Australian and New Zealand Trade Practices Litigation” (1990) 18 ABLR 86; Norman and Williams, “The Analysis of Market and Competition Under the Trade Practices Act: Towards the Resolution of some Hitherto Unresolved Issues” (1983) 11 ABLR 396; Gardiner, “The Continuing Saga of Market Definition” (1995) 3 TPLJ 161; Corrigan, “Current Issues in Market Definition Under the Trade Practices Act” (1997) 5 TPLJ 154; Landrigan, “The Temporal Dimension of a Market: Illustrations from Case Law and the US Merger Guidelines” (1997) 5 TPLJ 242. For general comment on the term “market”, see Heydon, Trade Practices Law (Lawbook Co., subscription service) at [3.240]- [3.610]; Beaton-Wells, Proof of Antitrust Markets in Australia (Federation Press, 2003); Scherer, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (Rand McNally, 1970); Baxt: “The Australian Concept of Market – How it Began” in Richardson and Williams, The Law and The Market (Federation Press, 1995); Corones, Restrictive Trade Practices Law (1994). For views on cluster markets see Ayres, “Rationalising Antitrust Cluster Markets” (1985) 95 Yale Law Journal; Shiff, Ergas and Landrigan, “Telecommunications Issues in Market Definition” (1998) 6 CCLJ. For views on the use of economists as expert witnesses, see Brunt, “The Use of Economic Evidence in Antitrust Litigation: Australia” (1986) 14 ABLR 261. For views on the admissibility of survey evidence, see Farmer, “The Admissibility of Survey Evidence in Intellectual Property Cases” (1984) UNSWLJ 57. 4F

References to purpose or reason

(1) [Contract provision deemed to have particular purpose] For the purposes of this Act: (a) a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or a covenant or a proposed covenant, shall be deemed to have had, or to have, a particular purpose if:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

131

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4E.360]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4F

[CCA.4F.20] (i)

(b)

the provision was included in the contract, arrangement or understanding or is to be included in the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or the covenant was required to be given or the proposed covenant is to be required to be given, as the case may be, for that purpose or for purposes that included or include that purpose; and (ii) that purpose was or is a substantial purpose; and a person shall be deemed to have engaged or to engage in conduct for a particular purpose or a particular reason if: (i) the person engaged or engages in the conduct for purposes that included or include that purpose or for reasons that included or include that reason, as the case may be; and (ii) that purpose or reason was or is a substantial purpose or reason.

(2) [Where section does not apply] This section does not apply for the purposes of subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1), 45DB(1), 45E(2) and 45E(3). [Subs (2) insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 15] [S 4F am Act 60 of 1996; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4F COMMENTARY Outline .............................................................................................................................................. Concept: purpose of a provision ...................................................................................................... Concept: a person’s purpose or reason .......................................................................................... Definition: substantial .......................................................................................................................

[CCA.4F.20]

[CCA.4F.20] [CCA.4F.40] [CCA.4F.60] [CCA.4F.80]

Outline

This section is of particular relevance to s 45 (anti-competitive arrangements), s 45B (covenants affecting competition), s 46 (misuse of market power), and s 47 (exclusive dealing). The section provides, in effect, that the relevant purpose need not be the only purpose for which the relevant conduct or arrangement occurred. It need only be a substantial purpose. This means that: • where the relevant question is whether or not a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding relates to its purpose, it will be deemed to have that purpose if the provision was included for purposes which include the relevant purpose and that purpose was a substantial purpose; and • where the relevant question is whether or not a person engaged in particular conduct for a specific purpose, it will be deemed to have done so if the purposes include the relevant purpose and that purpose was a substantial purpose. The section also deals with the reasons for conduct, providing that the relevant reason need not be the only reason for the relevant conduct. It need only be a substantial reason. There is a significant difference between “purpose” and “reason” as used in this section. “Purpose” deals with the effect which is sought to be achieved and “reason” deals with motive. [CCA.4F.40]

Concept: purpose of a provision

The term “purpose” is applied by ss 45 and 44ZZRD, not to the parties to a contract, arrangement or understanding, but to a provision. Section 4F(1)(a) is relevant to determining what “purpose” means in that context. In relation to the cartel provisions, s 44ZZRD(6)-(11) are also relevant. “Purpose” means the effect which is sought to be achieved – “the end in view”, but how is this to be applied to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding?

132

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4F.80]

s 4F

As Gummow J noted in News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943, the section “speaks not of human or corporate actors but of the provision itself having the purpose”. A provision has no mind and can therefore have no purpose. It follows that the purpose of a provision is a legal conclusion expressed as an attributed state of mind: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947 at [251]. See also Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 All ER 142; [1962] 3 WLR 694 at 804 (AC). Section 4F requires an inquiry into why the provision was included in the contract, arrangement or understanding. That leads to the subjective purpose of the parties: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943; J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758.

The purpose for which conduct is engaged in is to be ascertained by having regard to the direct and indirect evidence of the actual intentions and purposes of the relevant party. The Court will treat with caution evidence which is ex post facto and self-serving. In the absence of evidence from the relevant decision-makers, the finding of purpose is an inference to be drawn from all of the circumstances on the balance of probabilities: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; [2003] ATPR 41-947, applied, for instance, in Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119 (Collier J). Whether or not all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding need to have the required anti-competitive purpose has not been settled. See Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160; ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 52,060 (ATPR); ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911; Carlton & United Breweries (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing (NSW) Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 351; [1987] ATPR 40-820 and the s 45D(1)(b) case Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657 at 41,298 (ATPR). [CCA.4F.60]

Concept: a person’s purpose or reason

Section 4F(1)(b) deals with the term “purpose” in the context of ss 46 and 47 In that context “purpose” refers to the purpose of the relevant participant and is used interchangeably with the term “reason”. In this context, it means the intention to achieve a particular result, rather than motive: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; [1989] ATPR 40-925; Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 200 ALR 157. The section makes it clear that the relevant purpose or reason does not have to be the only purpose or reason, but it must be a substantial one. In s 4F(1)(b) the term “purpose” refers to the purpose of the relevant participant and is used interchangeably with the term “reason”. In this context it would appear that the term refers to the subjective motive of the person, although that has not been judicially determined. [CCA.4F.80]

Definition: substantial

The term “substantial” is imprecise and ambiguous. Its meaning can range from “considerable” or “big” to “not merely nominal” depending on the context. Sometimes it is used in a relative sense. The meaning of

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

133

CCA ss 1-6AA

Purpose is not to be confused with the motive, which is the reason for seeking an end rather than the effect sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943; ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR); J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4G

[CCA.4F.80]

the term “substantial” in each context in which it appears in the Act has not been conclusively determined. In Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883 the court referred to the proper construction of the term “substantial” as being the subject of “inconclusive debate”. In ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 476 (FCR), 52,060 (ATPR), the Federal Court explained the effect of s 4F as follows: Section 4F makes it plain that it is sufficient that a purpose was or is a substantial purpose, whether one is construing a section which is addressed to provisions said to have a particular purpose, or a section which is addressed to persons engaging in conduct for a particular purpose. It also makes it clear that it is sufficient that the proscribed purpose was included in other purposes. See also News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 58 FCR 447; 135 ALR 33; [1996] ATPR 41-466 at 41,701 (ATPR); South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at 43,158, [248] (ATPR). See generally [CCA.45.300]. 4G

Lessening of competition to include preventing or hindering competition

For the purposes of this Act, references to the lessening of competition shall be read as including references to preventing or hindering competition. [S 4G insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4G COMMENTARY [CCA.4G.20]

Outline

This provision is relevant for the purposes of ss 44ZZ, 44ZZE, 45, 47(10) and 50. It ensures that the term “substantially lessening competition” includes preventing or hindering competition. The term “preventing” is well understood and needs no explanation. The term “hindering” means in any way affecting usual competition to an appreciable extent: see Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers (WA) v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; 48 IR 452; 114 ALR 551; [1993] ATPR 41-245; Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 32; 65 ALJR 262; 99 ALR 275; [1991] ATPR 41-098, Mason CJ said (CLR 32 at 45). Conduct hindering or preventing competition can involve conduct engaged in by threat and verbal intimidation as well as by physical interference: see ABC v Parish [1980] FCA 33; (1980) 43 FLR 129; 29 ALR 228; [1980] ATPR 40-154. 4H

Application of Act in relation to leases and licences of land and buildings In this Act: (a) a reference to a contract shall be construed as including a reference to a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building and shall be so construed notwithstanding the express references in this Act to such leases or licences; (b) a reference to making or entering into a contract, in relation to such a lease or licence, shall be read as a reference to granting or taking the lease or licence; and (c) a reference to a party to a contract, in relation to such a lease or licence, shall be read as including a reference to any person bound by, or entitled to the benefit of, any provision contained in the lease or licence.

[S 4H insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

134

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4J.20]

s 4J

[Editor’s Note: There is no s 4I in this Act.]

SECTION 4H COMMENTARY [CCA.4H.20]

Outline

This provision is relevant to s 45 and applies that section to leases and licences of land and buildings notwithstanding that s 45B expressly deals with restrictive covenants in leases and licences. In Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10; (1976) 133 CLR 390, the High Court had decided that restrictive covenants attaching to land did not come within the restraint of trade doctrine, at least when created by prior owners, but this section makes it clear that such provisions will be subject to the Act if they have an anticompetitive purpose or effect. Joint ventures In this Act: (a) a reference to a joint venture is a reference to an activity in trade or commerce: (i) carried on jointly by two or more persons, whether or not in partnership; or (ii) carried on by a body corporate formed by two or more persons for the purpose of enabling those persons to carry on that activity jointly by means of their joint control, or by means of their ownership of shares in the capital, of that body corporate; and (b) a reference to a contract or arrangement made or understanding arrived at, or to a proposed contract or arrangement to be made or proposed understanding to be arrived at, for the purposes of a joint venture shall, in relation to a joint venture by way of an activity carried on by a body corporate as mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), be read as including a reference to the memorandum and articles of association, rules or other document that constitute or constitutes, or are or is to constitute, that body corporate. [S 4J insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4J COMMENTARY [CCA.4J.20]

Outline

This section defines the term “joint venture” for the purpose of an exception to the cartel provisions: see ss 44ZZRO and 44ZZRP. The definition is also relevant to s 76C which removes joint ventures from the per se application of the exclusionary provisions prohibition in s 45. The term “joint venture” is not a technical term. It means an association of persons for the purposes of a particular trading, commercial, mining or other undertaking with a view to mutual profit, with each participant usually contributing funds, property or skill. The term also refers to a joint undertaking or activity carried out through a medium other than a partnership, such as a company, a trust, an agency or joint ownership: United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 49; 157 CLR 1; 60 ALR 741. The term “joint venture” has conventionally and commonly been used to refer to an association for the purposes of a single undertaking rather than for the continuous carrying on of a business and the term has been used in a general sense to describe undertakings that do not have legal attributes differing from partnerships: Gibson Motor Sport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes [2005] FCA 749. Section 4J defines the term “joint venture” for the purposes of the Act by reference to two forms: • unincorporated ventures between two or more persons, whether corporations or not, carrying on activities in trade or commerce jointly whether or not the relationship is one of partnership; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

135

CCA ss 1-6AA

4J

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4K

[CCA.4J.20] • incorporated ventures carried on by two or more parties for a joint purpose, with joint control or ownership.

The section also makes it clear that, in relation to an incorporated venture, the constitution of the venture is taken to be a contract or arrangement between the shareholders: s 4J(b). As Crennan J observed in Gibson Motor Sport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes [2005] FCA 749, common characteristics of joint ventures include participants: • holding proprietary interests in the assets of the joint undertaking, often, but not necessarily, as tenants-in-common; • exercising joint control of the undertaking; • contributing to the joint undertaking, but not necessarily equally: Canny Gabriel Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd [1974] HCA 22; (1974) 131 CLR 321 at 327; Television Broadcasters Limited v Ashton’s Nominees Pty Ltd (No.1) (1979) 22 SASR 552. • enjoying rights and assume obligations, which are often several, and calculated by reference to ownership of shares and/or contributions made; • having a joint (or community of) interest in the performance of the undertaking’s purpose: Cummings v Lewis (1993) 41 FCR 559 at 314/315 (per Cooper J); and • associating in the undertaking for mutual commercial gain. For examples, see [CCA.90.1020] and ACCC v PRK Corp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 715; [2009] ATPR 42-295. 4K

Loss or damage to include injury In this Act: (a) a reference to loss or damage, other than a reference to the amount of any loss or damage, includes a reference to injury; and (b) a reference to the amount of any loss or damage includes a reference to damages in respect of an injury.

[S 4K insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4K COMMENTARY [CCA.4K.20]

Outline

The Act permits any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of conduct proscribed by the Act to be compensated for that loss or damage. The words “loss or damage” are to be given their ordinary meaning in the context within which they appear. The ordinary meaning of “loss” is “detriment or disadvantage resulting from deprivation or change of conditions”. “Damage” is defined as “loss or detriment caused by hurt or injury affecting estate, condition or circumstance, injury or harm”: Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31; 110 ALR 608; [1993] ATPR 41-203. The section also includes injury in the concept of loss or damage. In Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [1998] HCA 69; (1998) 196 CLR 494; 73 ALJR 12; 158 ALR 333; ATPR 41-665; [1999] ASAL 55-014 at [53] (HCA), 515 (CLR), 41,413 (ATPR) McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ said: It may be that “injury” in s 4K is intended to refer to injury to the person but we do not need to decide if that is so. Even if “injury” is to be given some wider meaning than personal injury, we do not accept that a person suffers injury simply because a hoped for advantage does not materialise.

136

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4L.20]

s 4L

EXAMPLE • Barneys Blu-Crete Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (1979) 43 FLR 463; [1979] ATPR 40-139. Northrop J found, in the context of s 45D, that preventing a corporation from obtaining raw materials necessary to enable it to carry on business had the effect of causing loss or damage to that business. • Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 203; 142 ALR 527; 25 MVR 17; [1997] ATPR 41-554; [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-421. The court held that the word “injury” includes bodily or personal injury and extends to other forms of harm, so that the widow and children of an official killed in the course of a car rally allegedly represented to be safe were not precluded from taking proceedings for breach of former TPA s 52 (ACL s 18). • See also Brabazon v Western Mail Pty Ltd (1985) 8 FCR 122; 4 IPR 408; 58 ALR 712; [1985] ATPR 40-549; Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193 at 600 (CLR).

4KA

Definitions etc that do not apply in Part XI or Schedule 2

Despite any other provision of this Act, sections 4 to 4K do not affect the meaning of any expression used in Part XI or Schedule 2, unless a contrary intention appears.

Editor’s note: Sections 4KB–4KC were repealed by Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 23, with effect from 1 Jan 2011 and have not been reproduced.

4L

Severability

If the making of a contract after the commencement of this section contravenes this Act by reason of the inclusion of a particular provision in the contract, then, subject to any order made under section 51ADB or 87, nothing in this Act affects the validity or enforceability of the contract otherwise than in relation to that provision in so far as that provision is severable. [S 4L am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 24, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 15; Act 17 of 1986, s 7; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4L COMMENTARY [CCA.4L.20]

Outline

This section renders invalid only those parts of a contract found not to comply with the Act and preserves the balance of the contract. In effect, it imports the doctrine of severability into every contract. However, the section only applies in limited circumstances. First, it only applies to contracts, as distinct from arrangements, understandings or conduct. Second, it only applies if the making of the contract contravenes the Act. Third, it only applies if the contract contravenes the Act due to the inclusion of a particular provision in it: SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417. Where s 4L applies, having regard to the above construction, the second part of the section becomes relevant. That central proposition is the direct opposite of the ordinary rule that a contract whose making is illegal will not be enforced: SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

137

CCA ss 1-6AA

[S 4KA subst Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 22, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 113 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4M

[CCA.4L.20]

There are two qualifications expressed in the section. First, different consequences follow in relation to the offending provision “in so far as that provision is severable”. The words “in so far as” describe the extent of invalidity and unenforceability that is to follow from the contravention that engages the section. In many cases a “blue pencil” approach to severance may determine the matter, but if not, working out of those limits in each case will depend upon the particular contractual provisions that are to be considered. Common law rules of severance have no application in undertaking that task: SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417. Accordingly, common law rules such as those derived from McFarlane v Daniell (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 337; 55 WN (NSW) 132 and Carney v Herbert [1985] AC 301; [1984] 3 WLR 1303; [1985] 1 All ER 438, eg that provisions of a contract may only be severed if their severance does not materially change the intent of the contract, are not relevant. In cases where this section cannot be applied, s 87 provides an alternative. Whether or not s 87 can be utilised where severance under s 4L is not available has yet to be determined: SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2004] FCA 937; [2004] ATPR 42-016; News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521; Solanowski v Penrith City Council [2002] NSWCA 175. 4M

Saving of law relating to restraint of trade and breaches of confidence

This Act does not affect the operation of: (a) the law relating to restraint of trade in so far as that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Act; or (b) the law relating to breaches of confidence; but nothing in the law referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) affects the interpretation of this Act. [S 4M insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 6]

SECTION 4M COMMENTARY [CCA.4M.20]

Outline

This provision preserves the common law in relation to restraints of trade, to the extent that the common law is capable of operating concurrently with the Act. The High Court explained the operation of s 4M in Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [2001] HCA 45; (2001) 205 CLR 126; 75 ALJR 1385; 181 ALR 337; [2001] ATPR 41-830 at 43,228, 43,229 (ATPR): First, unlike the position in the United States respecting s 1 of the Sherman Act, developments in the common law will not affect the interpretation of the Trade Practices Act. Secondly, the common law is free to develop independently of the statute, provided always that the common law is capable of operating concurrently with the statute. Thus, the common law may strike down a restraint which falls outside the operation of Pt IV. … [Third], while s 4M leaves the common law free to develop in the fashion identified in the section, it does not deny that in such development the courts may have regard to the statute. Observations made by Deane J when dealing with the interrelation between the common law and the provisions of Pt V of the Trade Practices Act (especially s 52) are in point. His Honour’s remarks in Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414; suggest that, in deciding what development, if any, there should be of the common law respecting a particular subject, the court should have regard to what the Parliament had determined to be “the appropriate balance between competing claims and policies”. That is a point of significance here, where the question is whether the restraint in Art 7.1 is to be reconciled with the public interest, and Pt IV of the Trade Practices Act establishes a detailed regime to which particular exceptions are stated.

138

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4M.20]

s 4M

Not every restriction will be regarded as attracting the restraint of trade doctrine and therefore risk unenforceability if it does not meet the reasonableness test. For instance, the restraint of trade doctrine does not apply to restrictive covenants attaching to land: Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10; (1976) 133 CLR 390 (although for the purposes of the Act, leases and licences of land are to be regarded as contracts: s 4H). In Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181; [2002] ATPR 41-854, the High Court indicated that licences to use intellectual property were not caught by the restraint of trade doctrine. However, the categories of restraint coming within the doctrine are not closed: Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] Ch 146 cited by Gibbs J in Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10; (1976) 133 CLR 390. Although the test to be applied to determine whether a contractual restriction comes within the doctrine has not been settled in Australia, the “trading society test” expounded by Lord Wilberforce in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1967] UKHL 1; [1968] AC 269 seems to have gained the greater acceptance: see Australian Capital Territory v Munday [2000] FCA 653; 99 FCR 72 (Miles CJ, O’Connor & Heery JJ) ; Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 563 (Cowdroy J). Simply stated, that test involves considering whether the restriction is of a type that society considers necessary as part of doing business. Arrangements that are generally found to be acceptable and necessary, as part of the structure of a trading society, are not covered by the restraint of trade doctrine.

At common law, a restraint within the scope of the restraint of trade doctrine will be valid only if it is reasonable in the interests of the parties to it and reasonable in the interests of the public: Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535; Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353; 46 ALJR 23; [1972] ALR 370; Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Co Engineering Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288; 1 ALR 385; [1973] ATPR 40-001; Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Patricia’s Chocolates & Candies Pty Ltd (1947) 77 CLR 574; 21 ALJR 281. As was said by Macnaghten LJ in Nordenfelt: The public have an interesting every person carrying on his trade freely; so has the individual. All interference with individual liberty of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if nothing more are contrary to public policy and are therefore void. That is the general rule. But there are exceptions. Restraints of trade and interference with individual liberty of action may be justified by the special circumstances of a particular case. It is a sufficient justification and indeed it is the only justification if the restriction is reasonable – reasonable that is, in reference to the interests of the parties concerned and reasonable in reference to the interests of the public, so framed and so guarded to afford adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed while at the same time it is in no way injurious to the public. The Nordenfelt test requires that all contracts in restraint of trade be justified as reasonable in the interests of both the parties. It does so by applying the test of reasonableness according to the situation the parties occupy, thus recognising the different considerations which affect vendor and purchaser of the goodwill of a business: Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Patricia’s Chocolates & Candies Pty Ltd (1947) 77 CLR 574; 21 ALJR 281 at 590 (CLR). EXAMPLE • Petersville Ltd v Peters (WA) Ltd [1999] FCA 5; (1999) 160 ALR 359; 43 IPR 323; [1999] ATPR 41-674. The court considered that, for a partnership of two traders who had a significant share of the market, to enter a restrictive covenant for nearly 15 years was against the public interest. Upheld on appeal: Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [1999] FCA 1245; [1999] ATPR 41-714 and Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [2001] HCA 45; (2001) 205 CLR 126; 75 ALJR 1385; 181 ALR 337; [2001] ATPR 41-830.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

139

CCA ss 1-6AA

Section 51(2)(e) specifically exempts sale covenants protecting goodwill for the purchaser from the operation of the relevant restrictive trade practices provisions of the Act: see IRAF Pty Ltd v Graham [1982] 1 NSWLR 419; (1982) 59 FLR 115; 41 ALR 209; [1982] ATPR 40-281.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4N

[CCA.4M.20]

•

•

•

•

•

See also Pearson v HRX Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 111; Elsley v J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Limited [1978] 2 SCR 916 (Supreme Court of Canada); Synavant Australia Pty Ltd v Harris [2001] FCA 1517; Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181; 76 ALJR 246; 185 ALR 152; 53 IPR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-854. Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181; 76 ALJR 246; 185 ALR 152; 53 IPR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-854. The High Court indicated that licences to use intellectual property were not caught by the restraint of trade doctrine. ACT v Munday [2000] FCA 653; (2000) 99 FCR 72; [2000] ATPR 41-771. The court held that the restraint of trade doctrine did not apply to the terms of a Government licence to enter a garbage tip. See also: Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd [2001] FCA 1040; (2001) 110 FCR 157; [2001] ATPR 41-831. Bartsch v Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 409 (Gummow J, French J and Heerey JJ). The court upheld a licence condition in relation to a computerised system for flying training as reasonable for the purpose of protecting the licensor’s business. Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 568; (2004) 62 IPR 274; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-253. This case involved a restrictive covenant relating to the design of light poles. Gyles J found that the clause, which prohibited the use of the Council’s designs except for the purposes of the respondent manufacturing and supplying poles, was either not caught by the restraint of trade doctrine or reasonable in all of the circumstances. Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 563 (Cowdroy J). A clause in a lease that required the lessee to not use the word ‘Thredbo’ in business conducted from the premises without the lessor’s consent, was found to come within the restraint of trade doctrine and to be unreasonable. Upheld on appeal: Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v Thredbonet Marketing Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 87.

In New South Wales, the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 provides that a restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether it is in severable terms or not. It is not against public policy for other States to apply the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976: see Orton v Melman [1981] 1 NSWLR 583; Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 563; Hawker De Havilland Ltd v Fernandes [1996] ATPR 41-479. 4N

Extended application of Part IIIA

(1) [Part IIIA applies to external territories and offshore areas] Part IIIA, and the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to Part IIIA, extend to services provided by means of facilities that are, or will be, wholly or partly within: (a) an external Territory; or (b) the offshore area in respect of a State, of the Northern Territory, or of an external Territory, as specified in section 7 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. [Subs (1) am Act 117 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 3 item 60; Act 17 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 2 items 113 and 114]

(2) [Repealed] [Subs (2) rep Act 17 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 2 item 115]

(3) [Exemption: s 15B of Acts Interpretation Act 1901] Nothing in subsection (1) affects the operation of section 15B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in respect of the application of Part IIIA, and of the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to Part IIIA, in any part of: (a) the coastal sea of Australia; or

140

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4N.20]

s 4N

(b) the coastal sea of an external Territory; that is on the landward side of each of the offshore areas referred to in that subsection. [Subs (3) am Act 17 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 2 item 116]

(4) [Definition: service] For the purposes of this section: service includes proposed service covered by Division 2A of Part IIIA. [Subs (4) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1] [S 4N am Act 117 of 2008; Act 92 of 2006; Act 17 of 2006; insrt Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11]

SECTION 4N COMMENTARY Outline

This section extends the reach of the essential facilities provisions of the Act to external territories and to areas adjacent to a State or Territory as defined in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, including in the case of Queensland, the Coral Sea. Section 5A of that Act provides: (1) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to subsection (2), the adjacent area in respect of a State other than Western Australia is so much of the area described in Schedule 2 under the heading that refers to that State as comprises waters of the sea that: (a) are not within the outer limits of the territorial sea of Australia (including the territorial sea adjacent to any island forming part of Australia); and (b) are within the outer limits of the continental shelf. (1A) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to subsections (2) and (10), the adjacent area in respect of Western Australia or the Northern Territory is so much of the area described in Schedule 2 under the heading that refers to that State or Territory as comprises waters of the sea that: (a) are not within the outer limits of the territorial sea of Australia (including the territorial sea adjacent to any island forming part of Australia); and (b) are within the outer limits of the continental shelf; and (c) are not within the Joint Petroleum Development Area. (2) If at any time the breadth of the territorial sea of Australia is determined or declared to be greater than 3 nautical miles, subsections (1) and (1A) continue to have effect as if the breadth of the territorial sea of Australia had continued to be 3 nautical miles. (3) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to subsection (10), the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is so much of the area described in Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 Schedule 2 under the heading that refers to that Territory as comprises land and water that: (a) are within the outer limits of the continental shelf; and (b) are not within the Joint Petroleum Development Area. (4) This Act, and any Act with which this Act is incorporated, have effect in relation to so much of the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands as consists of land as though that land were beneath the sea and were portion of the sea-bed and subsoil of that adjacent area. (5) For the purposes of this Act, the adjacent area in respect of Norfolk Island is the area the boundaries of which are: (a) the coastline at mean low water of Norfolk Island; and (b) the outer limit of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the coast of Norfolk Island.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

141

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.4N.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 4N

[CCA.4N.20] (6) For the purposes of this Act, the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands is the area the boundaries of which are: (a) the coast lines at mean low water of the islands comprising that Territory; and (b) the outer limit of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the coasts of those islands. (6A) For the purposes of this Act, the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Christmas Island is the area whose boundaries are: (a) the coastline at mean low water of Christmas Island; and (b) the outer limit of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the coast of Christmas Island. (6B) For the purposes of this Act, the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands comprises the following areas: (a) the area whose boundaries are: (i) the coastline at mean low water of the north atoll of the Territory (otherwise called North Keeling Island); and (ii) the outer limit of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the coast of that Island; (b) the area whose boundaries are: (i) the coastlines at mean low water of the remaining islands of the Territory; and (ii) the outer limit of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the coasts of those islands. (7) For the purposes of this Act, the Coral Sea area is so much of the area to the east of the adjacent area in respect of Queensland as comprises waters of the sea that are within the outer limits of the continental shelf, other than any part of that area that is to the south of the parallel of Latitude 25° South or that is on the landward side of the coastline of any island at mean low water. (8) This Act, and any Act with which this Act is incorporated, apply in relation to the Coral Sea area as if that area were part of the adjacent area in respect of Queensland and references in this Act, and in any Act with which this Act is incorporated, to the adjacent area in respect of a State, shall, in relation to Queensland, be read as including references to the Coral Sea area. (9) For the purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (7), the continental shelf does not include any area of seabed and subsoil that, by virtue of an agreement in force between Australia and another country, is not an area over which Australia exercises sovereign rights. (10) For the purposes of an Act to which this subsection applies, this section has effect as if paragraphs (1A)(c) and (3)(b) were omitted. (11) The regulations may prescribe the Acts to which subsection (10) applies.

The intention is that facilities in Australian territorial waters may be proclaimed for the purposes of Pt IIIA. Section 4N(2) provides that nothing in this section affects the operation of s 15B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in respect of the application of Pt IIIA. That section provides: (1) Except so far as the contrary intention appears: (a) the provisions of every Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this section, shall be taken to have effect in and in relation to the coastal sea of Australia as if the coastal sea of Australia were part of Australia; and (b) any reference in an Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this section, to Australia or to the Commonwealth shall be read as including a reference to the coastal sea of Australia.

142

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.4N.20]

s5

5

Extended application of this Act to conduct outside Australia

(1) [Extension to conduct outside Australia] Each of the following provisions: (a) Part IV; (b) Part XI; (c) the Australian Consumer Law (other than Part 5-3); (d) [Repealed] (e) [Repealed] (ea) [Repealed] (f) the remaining provisions of this Act (to the extent to which they relate to any of the provisions covered by paragraph (a), (b) or (c)); extends to the engaging in conduct outside Australia by: (g) bodies corporate incorporated or carrying on business within Australia; or (h) Australian citizens; or (i) persons ordinarily resident within Australia. [Subs (1) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 25 and 26, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 6 and 7; Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 items 27 and 28; subst Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4; am Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 240; Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 106 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 222 of 1992, s 19 and Sch 1]

(1A) [Extension to conduct by NZ corporations] In addition to the extended operation that section 46A has by virtue of subsection (1), that section extends to the engaging in conduct outside Australia by: (a) New Zealand and New Zealand Crown corporations; or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

143

CCA ss 1-6AA

(2) Except so far as the contrary intention appears: (a) the provisions of an Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this section, that are in force in an external Territory shall be taken to have effect in and in relation to the coastal sea of the Territory as if the coastal sea of the Territory were part of the Territory; and (b) any reference in an Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this section, to all or any of the external Territories (whether or not a particular Territory or particular Territories is or are referred to) shall be read as including a reference to the coastal sea of any Territory to which the reference relates. (3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) shall be taken as limiting the operation that any Act had before the commencement of this section. (4) In this section, coastal sea: (a) in relation to Australia, means: (i) the territorial sea of Australia; and (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or internal Territory; and includes the airspace over, and the sea-bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea; and (b) in relation to an external Territory, means: (i) the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory; and (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory and not within the limits of the Territory; and includes the airspace over, and the sea-bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

s5

[CCA.5.20]

(b) bodies corporate carrying on business within New Zealand; or (c) persons ordinarily resident within New Zealand. [Subs (1A) insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 6]

(2) [Sections 47 and 48: additional extended operation] In addition to the extended operation that sections 47 and 48 have by virtue of subsection (1), those sections extend to the engaging in conduct outside Australia by any persons in relation to the supply by those persons of goods or services to persons within Australia. (3) [Claims under s 82 or s 236 of ACL] Where a claim under section 82, or under section 236 of the Australian Consumer Law, is made in a proceeding, a person is not entitled to rely at a hearing in respect of that proceeding on conduct to which a provision of this Act extends by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section except with the consent in writing of the Minister. [Subs (3) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 27, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 8]

(4) [Consent of Minister] A person other than the Minister, the Commission or the Director of Public Prosecutions is not entitled to make an application to the Court for an order under subsection 87(1) or (1A), or under subsection 237(1) or 238(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, in a proceeding in respect of conduct to which a provision of this Act extends by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section except with the consent in writing of the Minister. [Subs (4) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 28, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 8]

(5) [Where consent not to be given] The Minister shall give a consent under subsection (3) or (4) in respect of a proceeding unless, in the opinion of the Minister: (a) the law of the country in which the conduct concerned was engaged in required or specifically authorised the engaging in of the conduct; and (b) it is not in the national interest that the consent be given. [Subs (5) insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 8] [S 5 am Act 103 of 2010; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6; Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 27; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 240; Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 106 of 1998; Act 222 of 1992; Act 70 of 1990; Act 17 of 1986]

SECTION 5 COMMENTARY Outline ................................................................................................................................................ [CCA.5.20] Proposals for change ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.5.40] Concept: carrying on business in Australia ....................................................................................... [CCA.5.60] Concept: otherwise connected .......................................................................................................... [CCA.5.80] Practice and procedure: when tests are to be applied .................................................................... [CCA.5.100] Extraterritorial operation ................................................................................................................... [CCA.5.120] Standing: ministerial consent ........................................................................................................... [CCA.5.140] Practice and procedure: evidence of overseas conduct ................................................................. [CCA.5.160] Practice and procedure: where conduct occurs .............................................................................. [CCA.5.180] Cooperation agreements ................................................................................................................. [CCA.5.200] Further reading ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.5.220]

[CCA.5.20]

Outline

The Act has been framed on the assumption that when conduct is made a contravention of the Act it is only conduct in Australia that is dealt with unless the conditions set out in s 5 apply to extend the operation of 144

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary

[CCA.5.40]

s5

the Act, including the ACL to extraterritorial conduct: Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865; Costa Vraca v Bell Regal Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 65 (Merkel J). Whether or not conduct occurs in Australia is determined by considering where, in substance, the conduct took place; not where the cause of action arose: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; 65 ALJR 83; 97 ALR 124; [1990] HCA 55; Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] 2 WLR 441; AC 458; 1 NSWLR 83 applied in ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 (Edelman J): see also [CCA.138.60]. Section 5(1) confers limited extraterritorial operation by applying the Act to conduct outside Australia, but only if the party engaging in the conduct is an Australian citizen, a person ordinarily resident in Australia, an Australian incorporated entity or a body corporate carrying on business in Australia. However, the State and Territory Competition Policy Reform Acts contain an extended jurisdiction. They apply to persons otherwise connected with the relevant State or Territory: see [CCA.5.80].

Inclusion of bodies corporate carrying on business in Australia significantly broadens the scope of the provision. Any overseas corporation which carries on business in Australia, at least through a branch, is covered and consequently, if it engages in conduct, concludes a merger or enters contracts, arrangements or understandings overseas which have an adverse effect on competition in a market in Australia or if it misleads Australian consumers, its activities will come within the Act. Section 5(1A) extends s 46A (misuse of trans-Tasman market power) to conduct outside Australia engaged in by New Zealand residents, New Zealand corporations and bodies corporate carrying on business in New Zealand. Section 5(2) extends s 47 (exclusive dealing) and s 48 (resale price maintenance) to conduct outside Australia relating to the supply of goods or services in Australia. Section 5(1) extends s 50 (mergers) to acquisitions of bodies corporate incorporated in or carrying on business outside Australia and not present in Australia. This is because the prohibition is directed to the acquirer, which must be either incorporated or carrying on business within Australia (s 5(1): TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001 at 319-320 (FCR). [CCA.5.40]

Proposals for change

On 18 March 2015, the Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015 which includes a proposal to repeal s 5(3), (4) and (5) on the basis that the repeal of s 5(3) would apply to hearings commencing on or after the commencement of that repeal and the repeal of s 5(4) would apply to applications made on or after that commencement. This would remove the requirement for private parties to seek ministerial consent before relying on extra-territorial conduct in private competition law actions. In its response to the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), the Government affirmed its intention to proceed with this legislation. The Bill was not proceeded with. On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it did not support the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that s 5 should be amended to remove the requirement that the contravening firm has a connection with Australia (residence, incorporation or business presence). The Panel expressed the view that the law should apply to overseas conduct insofar as the conduct relates to trade or commerce within Australia or between Australia and places outside Australia. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

145

CCA ss 1-6AA

Section 5(2) extends the operation of the exclusive dealing (s 47) and resale price maintenance (s 48) provisions to conduct engaged in outside Australia in relation to the supply of goods or services to persons in Australia. The subsection extends the operation of the two relevant provisions to conduct that might be engaged in by persons who do not supply goods or services within Australia but who engage in conduct outside Australia in relation to a supply of goods or services within Australia. It does not follow that s 5does not apply to engaging in conduct outside Australia by persons who supply goods or services in Australia: ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 (Edelman J).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s5 [CCA.5.60]

[CCA.5.60] Concept: carrying on business in Australia

The term “carrying on business” has different meanings in different contexts: Luckins v Highway Motel (Carnarvon) Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 164; 50 ALJR 309; 7 ALR 413 at 178 (CLR). The term connotes activities undertaken as a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern, that is, activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis: Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; 54 ALJR 345; 29 ALR 577; 12 ATR 231 at 8-9 (CLR), 582-583 (ALR) (Mason J). However, in the context of s 5(1), the term can include businesses not carried on for profit: see [CCA.4.100]. In the context of s 5(1) there is no reason to import the additional requirement that to carry on business in the jurisdiction, a foreign company must also have a place of business in the jurisdiction. A place of business is not a requirement of comity. Further, importing such a requirement will impermissibly supplement the corporate requirement of carrying on business with the additional requirement of corporate presence or residence: Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 at [63] (ATPR), Merkel J. In ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196, Edelman J found that a US internet gaming company that was not registered in Australia, had no subsidiaries here, but supplied online internet games from servers in the USA, was nevertheless carrying on business in Australia because it had many customers in Australia, earned significant revenue from Australian customers, had servers located in Australia, its game content was “deposited” on three servers in Australia when requested by a subscriber, it incurred substantial expenses in Australia, relied on relationships with third party members of content delivery providers in Australia and had entered into contracts with third party service providers who provide content around the world, including in Australia. When a foreign corporation operates through a subsidiary in Australia, is the foreign corporation to be regarded as carrying on business here? The question to be considered is: is the Australian subsidiary doing its own business or is it doing the foreign corporation’s business? Conversely, when is the foreign corporation doing business through or by the subsidiary? See Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865; ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304. In answering those questions, a court is required to investigate the functions that the subsidiary has been performing and all aspects of the relationship between it and the overseas corporation: Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433; [1991] 1 All ER 929; [1990] 2 WLR 657 at 530 (Ch); Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865. In resolving the question of whether the subsidiary is in truth carrying on the parent’s business the court must examine “the totality of the relationship between the principal and the agent in the light of the nature of the company’s business and that of the agent”: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White [1999] VSC 262; [1999] 2 VR 681 at 691 (VR). Whether or not a corporation carries on business in Australia is a question of fact. In ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304, His Honour decided that the following were relevant in deciding whether the overseas partner was carrying on business in Australia through its local subsidiary, applying indicia adopted by Merkel J in Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865: • the parent appeared not to have exercised any significant control over the subsidiary’s business with its other major customers; • there did not appear to have been any substantial control exercised in practice through the board of directors; • the subsidiary had no general authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the parent; • there was not any evidence of a specific authority conferred by the parent on the subsidiary; • the subsidiary held its own assets (including bank accounts) in its own name and employed employees and purchased and sold products in its own name;

146

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.5.120]

s5

• the subsidiary produced its own financial accounts; • there was some use by the subsidiary of the parent’s branding; • the subsidiary conducted a substantial business in terms of turnover and employees, and was maintained as a distinct and separate entity; • the parent had no premises, offices or employees in Australia and it did not purport to engage in business activities in Australia. It would not be enough to show that the company’s operations may have been subject to supervision or control from its Australian parent: Manhattan (Asia) Ltd v Dymocks Franchise Systems (China) Ltd [2014] FCA 1143. Even where a foreign corporation is not carrying on business in Australia, it may nevertheless be party to a contravention of the Act by its Australian subsidiary: Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 at [163] (ATPR). [CCA.5.80]

Concept: otherwise connected

There is no basis for restricting the scope of the Competition Policy Reform Acts to the jurisdictional scope of the CCA. The expression “otherwise connected” must mean something other than “carrying on business”, or being incorporated or registered under the law of the relevant State or Territory, or being ordinarily resident in the State or Territory. The test of what is “otherwise connected” should be applied liberally and a remote or general connection between the conduct complained of and the relevant State or Territory should be sufficient: ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 4) [2012] FCA 1323; (2012) 298 ALR 251; [2012] ATPR 42-423 (Lander J); ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J). [CCA.5.100]

Practice and procedure: when tests are to be applied

As s 5(1) is concerned with extending the range of conduct to which the Act applies, the relevant date for consideration of whether a foreign body is carrying on business in Australia or a person is ordinarily resident in Australia is the date on which the contravention occurred: Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865. [CCA.5.120]

Extraterritorial operation

The general principles of statutory interpretation in relation to extraterritorial operation are that legislation is not to be interpreted as having extraterritorial effect unless this is made clear, and legislation is to be read, if possible, so as not to put the Commonwealth in breach of customary international law or some treaty obligation. As far as customary international law is concerned, Australia is entitled to regulate extraterritorial affairs so long as a proper nexus exists. There is no principle of customary international law which makes unlawful the regulation of extraterritorial affairs involving persons with a proper nexus to a State just because that regulation is superimposed on another State’s domestic legislation: ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 (Perram J). Section 5 extends the application of the Act, where the particular prohibition provision permits, to conduct of Australian corporations, corporations carrying on business in Australia, Australian citizens and Australian residents affecting the maintenance of competition and fair trade practices in relation to markets or consumers outside Australia, and potentially to markets outside Australia.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

147

CCA ss 1-6AA

Although the Act can apply to conduct outside Australia, the jurisdictional limitations set by this section require the conduct to be by bodies corporate incorporated or carrying on business in Australia or individuals who are either Australian citizens or residents. However there is a more extensive jurisdictional reach in relation to the Competition Code, provided by the Competition Policy Reform Acts of each State and Territory. In addition to extending the operation of the Code to bodies corporate incorporated or registered in the relevant State or Territory, and to persons resident or carrying on business in the jurisdiction, they extend the operation of the Code to “persons otherwise connected with this jurisdiction”.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s5

[CCA.5.120]

Section 5(1) extends the operation of s 45(2) to extraterritorial conduct in entering or giving effect to contracts, arrangements or understandings that have an anticompetitive purpose or likely effect: ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157. Whether or not the cartel provisions apply extraterritorially, in the sense that they apply to cartel conduct outside Australia by Australian corporations, corporations carrying on business in Australia, Australian citizens and Australian residents, affecting markets outside Australia (but no market in Australia) has not been decided; compare ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 and Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351 with Norcast S.ar.L v Bradken Ltd No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. The ACL should not be read down so as to exclude its application to conduct that might injure overseas consumers: Wells v John R Lewis (International) Pty Ltd (1975) 25 FLR 194; 1 TPC 226; [1975] ATPR 40-007 at 208 (FLR). Whether or not the Act applies to Pt IV or the ACL, conduct affecting persons overseas will depend on the terms of the particular prohibition. For instance, s 45(2) deals with exclusionary provisions and provisions which have an adverse effect on competition. As far as the latter is concerned, the term “competition” refers to competition in a market: s 45(3). The term “market” is defined to mean a market in Australia: s 4E. However, no such limitation applies to “exclusionary provisions”. EXAMPLE • ACCC v StoresOnline International Inc [2007] FCA 1597; [2007] ATPR 42-196. An injunction was granted against companies in the USA that conducted seminars and workshops in Australia when they failed to comply with a s 87B undertaking previously given to the ACCC not to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in the seminars and workshops in Australia. • ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79; [2007] ATPR 42-146. The respondent admitted to entering into agreements to supply its products in Korea, China, India and Taiwan, that contained a term that the companies would not sell the products at prices other than the specified prices. Whether it should have done so given jurisdictional questions is debatable. • ACCC v Worldplay Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1138; (2004) 210 ALR 562; [2004] ATPR 42-020. This case involving an internet based pyramid selling scheme run from Australia but not accessible by Australian consumers. Finn J held that the pyramid selling provisions should not be read down so as to apply only to protection of Australian consumers. Provided the pyramid selling conduct is engaged in within Australia it is immaterial that the persons who participate are not in Australia. • ACCC v Chen [2003] FCA 897; (2003) 132 FCR 309; 201 ALR 40; [2003] ATPR 41-948; [2004] ASAL 55-110. The court granted a declaration and injunction against an overseas individual who operated a website established and hosted in the USA that purported to accept bookings for the Sydney Opera House. • ACCC v Hughes [2002] FCA 270; [2002] ATPR 41-863; [2002] ASAL 55-078. The court had to consider internet advertising of medical products, where the internet site was hosted in the United States. The advertisements were found to be misleading and injunctions were granted on the basis that the material constituting the misrepresentations was on an Internet site intended to be accessed by consumers in Australia and other parts of the world through the telephone. • Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421. The court considered whether it should refuse to enforce a judgment obtained by the respondent in California relating to loans by the respondent to the applicants in California because, it was claimed, the respondent had engaged in misleading conduct in enforcing the loans. Tamberlin J held that even it were not possible to raise a defence under former TPA s 52 (ACL s 18) or a corresponding provision in California when the judgment was obtained there, neither Californian law or the enforcement of the Californian judgment would be so inconsistent or repugnant to the policy underlying the provisions of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 that enforcement should be refused.

148

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s5

[CCA.5.140] Standing: ministerial consent Section 5(3) requires that, in the case of damages claims, the consent of the Minister is required before any of the provisions of s 5(1) or (2) can be relied on at a hearing. That provision is to be contrasted with s 5(4) which prohibits proceedings under s 87 being commenced without ministerial approval where s 5(1) or (2) is to be relied on. The term “a hearing” applies to the trial of the substantive issues as well as to interlocutory applications. In Yamaji v Westpac Banking Corp (No 2) [1993] FCA 273; (1993) 42 FCR 436; 115 ALR 240; [1993] ATPR 41-244 Drummond J took the view that proceedings could be instituted before obtaining the consent of the Minister, but that consent must be obtained before any hearing, whether interlocutory or substantive. However, views on the requirement differ. In Tycoon Holdings Pty Ltd v Trencor Jetco Inc [1995] FCA 1185; [1995] ATPR 41-413 Einfeld J expressed the view that the section only required that the Minister’s consent be obtained before relief could be granted. In Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421 all necessary Ministerial consents were obtained prior to the conclusion of the hearing rather than before the hearing. Tamberlin J decided that this was sufficient because if it had been intended to require consent before the hearing appropriate language to make this clear would have been used and the words “at a hearing” in s 5(3) contemplate a period through to the finalisation of the hearing. See also Natureland Parks Pty Ltd v My-Life Corp Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 237; [1996] ATPR 41-493 at 240 (FCR); Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1458; (2008) 251 ALR 166; [2008] ATPR 42-256. Private proceedings for remedial orders under s 87 are treated differently. Section 5(4) provides that, where an application is proposed under s 87 relating to conduct outside Australia, the consent of the Minister is required before proceedings are instituted. Section 5(4) does not preclude the Minister from granting consent where an application to the court for s 87 orders has been made prior to the Minister giving consent. Whether the Minister’s consent is obtained at the required time is a matter for an applicant, not the Minister. It is not for the Minister to determine whether the use which the applicant proposes to make of the consent will be effective or valid: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs [2010] FCA 510; (2010) 186 FCR 168; 269 ALR 434. Except in cases where limitations considerations apply, an applicant would be unwise to institute proceedings before obtaining consent, because costs will be awarded against her or him if that person is not able to obtain consent. No consent is required in relation to injunction proceedings under s 80. The Minister is obliged to give consent unless the conduct in question was required or specifically authorised by the law of the country in which it was engaged in: s 5(5) and, if so, then the giving of consent is not, in the Minister’s opinion, in the national interest. See Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs [2010] FCA 510; (2010) 186 FCR 168; 269 ALR 434. See also Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd [2009] FCAFC 105; (2009) 179 FCR 323; 259 ALR 203. When a question is raised whether the Minister has given consent which is sufficient for claims to be made under s 5(3) or (4), the issue is to be determined by reference only to the information before the Minister when he or she made the decision giving the relevant consent: Yamaji v Westpac Banking Corp (No 2) [1993] FCA 273; (1993) 42 FCR 436; 115 ALR 240; [1993] ATPR 41-244. [CCA.5.160] Practice and procedure: evidence of overseas conduct Where there is relevant conduct in Australia, the Act applies because of that conduct, not because of any extraterritorial effect. The Act attaches to conduct within Australia. But in assessing that conduct, in relation both to its nature and to its quality, the court takes into account the whole of the available evidence, including evidence of events outside Australia: TPC v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 299; [1988] ATPR 40-876; Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 at [126] (ATPR).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

149

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.5.160]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s6

[CCA.5.160]

In Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136; (2009) 260 ALR 244; [2009] ATPR 42-297 a full Federal Court upheld the validity of a s 155 notice that sought information in relation to markets outside Australia because the information may relate to the effect of that conduct on markets in Australia. The effects test of extraterritorial operation of competition laws, first enunciated in US v Aluminium Co of America 148 F 2d 416 (1945), was limited following international objections by the US Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act 1982. See also Timberlane Lumber Co v Bank of America 549 F 2d 597 (1976). [CCA.5.180]

Practice and procedure: where conduct occurs

Where conduct occurs is determined by considering where, in substance, the conduct took place; not where the cause of action arose: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; 65 ALJR 83; 97 ALR 24; [1990] HCA 55; Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] 2 WLR 441; AC 458; 1 NSWLR 83 applied in ACCC v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 (Edelman J). Where the conduct in question arises from sending a facsimile, email or letter, or by telephone or other communication from overseas by overseas corporations to officers of their Australian subsidiaries and the communication was directed to, expected to be and was received in Australia, such conduct can, for the purposes of s 45, be regarded as taking place in Australia: Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd [2002] FCA 243; (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1; [2002] ATPR 41-865 at [147] (ATPR). The conduct of a party to a contract under, or pursuant to, or in connection with, that contract, can amount to a contravention of ACL s 18 (formerly TPA s 52) even though the proper law of the contract is foreign law, provided it is conduct in “trade” or “commerce” as defined. There is nothing in the CCA which limits the application of the Act to cases where the relevant contract has local law as its proper law. If it were otherwise, the provisions of the statute could easily be circumvented: Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160; 131 FLR 442; [1996] ATPR 41-489. [CCA.5.200]

Cooperation agreements

Australia has signed agreements with the United States, the United States Fair Trade Commission, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Taipei, Canada, Fiji Islands, Republic of Korea and the Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom dealing with mutual enforcement assistance and coordination of enforcement activities. For the full text of these agreements see the online version of this work at [16.1] to [16.11] or the ACCC website at http://www.accc.gov.au. [CCA.5.220]

Further reading

See Meltz, “The Extraterritorial Operation of the Trade Practices Act – A Time for Reappraisal?” (1996) 4 TPLJ 185; Wright, “The Extraterritorial Application of Sections 50 and 50A of the Trade Practices Act” (1992) 20 ABLR 152. 6

Extended application of this Act to persons who are not corporations

(1) [Effect of Act as provided by this section] Without prejudice to its effect apart from this section, this Act also has effect as provided by this section. (2) [Effect of Act] This Act, other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X, has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if: (a) any references in this Act other than in section 45DB, or section 33 or 155 of the Australian Consumer Law, to trade or commerce were, by express provision, confined to trade or commerce: (i) between Australia and places outside Australia; or (ii) among the States; or (iii) within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between two Territories; or

150

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s6 (iv) (b)

by way of the supply of goods or services to the Commonwealth or an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth; and

the following provisions: (i) sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK, Division 1A of Part IV, and sections 45, 45B, 45D to 45EB (other than section 45DB), 46 and 46A; (ia) Part V (other than Division 5); (ii) Part VIII; (iii)

sections 31 and 43, Division 3 of Part 3-1, and sections 50, 153, 163, 164 and 168, of the Australian Consumer Law; were, by express provision, confined in their operation to engaging in conduct to the extent to which the conduct takes place in the course of or in relation to: (iv) (v)

trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia; or trade or commerce among the States; or

(c)

(ca)

(d) (e)

(ea)

(eb) (f) (g)

trade or commerce within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories; or (vii) the supply of goods or services to the Commonwealth or an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth; and any reference in Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the Australian Consumer Law to a contract for the supply of goods or services and any reference in Part 3-5 or 5-4 of the Australian Consumer Law to the supply of goods or services, were, by express provision, confined to a contract made, or the supply of goods or services, as the case may be: (i) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia; or (ii) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce among the States; or (iii) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between two Territories; and any reference in Part 2-3 of the Australian Consumer Law to a contract were, by express provision, confined to a contract made: (i) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia; or (ii) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce among the States; or (iii) in the course of, or in relation to, trade or commerce within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between two Territories; and in subsection 45(1) and subparagraph 87(3)(a)(i) the words “in so far as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations on a corporation” were omitted; and in subsection 45B(1) and subparagraph 87(3)(a)(ii) the words “in so far as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations on a corporation or on a person associated with a corporation” were omitted; and subsections 45D(3), 45D(4) and 45DA(3) were repealed, the words “In the circumstances specified in subsections (3) and (4)” were omitted from subsection 45D(1) and the words “In the circumstances specified in subsection (3)” were omitted from subsection 45DA(1); and the second sentence in subsection 45E(1) were omitted; and [Repealed] subsection 96(2) were omitted; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

151

CCA ss 1-6AA

(vi)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s6 (h)

subject to paragraphs (d), (e), (ea), (eb) and (g), a reference in this Act to a corporation, except a reference in section 4, 48, 49, 50, 50A, 77A, 81, 151AE or 151AJ or in section 229 of the Australian Consumer Law, included a reference to a person not being a corporation.

[Subs (2) am Act 83 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2, with effect from 18 Jul 2014; Act 103 of 2013, s 3 and Sch 1 item 32, with effect from 29 Jun 2013; Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1, with effect from 6 Jun 2012; Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 29–35, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 8 and 9; Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 items 29 and 30; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 items 6–13; Act 126 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 9 item 22; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 3; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 33; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 items 241 and 242 (am Act 63 of 2002); Act 69 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1; Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; Act 58 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 items 16–20; Act 88 of 1995, s 37; Act 98 of 1993, s 48 and Sch 3; Act 106 of 1992, s 5 and Sch; Act 70 of 1990, s 7; Act 17 of 1986, s 9; Act 73 of 1980, s 3; Act 207 of 1978, s 3; Act 206 of 1978, s 5; Act 81 of 1977, s 7; Act 88 of 1976, s 4]

(2A) [Participating Territory] So far as subsection (2) relates to Part IV, that subsection has effect in relation to a participating Territory as if the words “within a Territory,” were omitted from subparagraphs (2)(a)(iii) and (2)(b)(iii). For this purpose, participating Territory means a Territory that is a participating Territory within the meaning of Part XIA but is not named in a notice in operation under section 150K. [Subs (2A) insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 6]

(2B) [Repealed] [Subs (2B) rep Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 31; insrt Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

(2C) [Additional effects of s 44ZZRD] In addition to the effect that this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has as provided by another subsection of this section, this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if: (a) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(2)(c) to goods or services supplied, or likely to be supplied, were, by express provision, confined to goods or services supplied, or likely to be supplied, to corporations or classes of corporations; and (b) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(2)(d) to goods or services acquired, or likely to be acquired, were, by express provision, confined to goods or services acquired, or likely to be acquired, from corporations or classes of corporations; and (c) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(2)(e) to goods or services re-supplied, or likely to be re-supplied, were, by express provision, confined to goods or services re-supplied, or likely to be re-supplied, to corporations or classes of corporations; and (d) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(2)(f) to goods or services likely to be re-supplied were, by express provision, confined to goods or services likely to be re-supplied to corporations or classes of corporations; and (e) the following paragraphs were added at the end of subsection 44ZZRD(2): “; or (g) goods or services re-supplied, or likely to be re-supplied, by corporations or classes of corporations to whom those goods or services were supplied by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (h) goods or services likely to be re-supplied by corporations or classes of corporations to whom those goods or services are likely to be supplied by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding.”; and (f) the reference in subparagraph 44ZZRD(3)(a)(i) to the production, or likely production, of goods were, by express provision, confined to the production, or likely production, of goods for supply to corporations or classes of corporations; and (g) the reference in subparagraph 44ZZRD(3)(a)(ii) to the supply of services were, by express provision, confined to the supply of services to corporations or classes of corporations; and

152

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s6 each reference in subparagraphs 44ZZRD(3)(a)(iii), (b)(i) and (ii) to persons or classes of persons were, by express provision, confined to corporations or classes of corporations; and (i) the reference in subparagraph 44ZZRD(3)(b)(iii) to the geographical areas in which goods or services are supplied, or likely to be supplied, were, by express provision, confined to the geographical areas in which goods or services are supplied, or likely to be supplied, to corporations or classes of corporations; and (j) the reference in subparagraph 44ZZRD(3)(b)(iv) to the geographical areas in which goods or services are acquired, or likely to be acquired, were, by express provision, confined to the geographical areas in which goods or services are acquired, or likely to be acquired, from corporations or classes of corporations; and (k) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(3)(c) to the supply or acquisition of goods or services were, by express provision, confined to supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, corporations or classes of corporations; and (l) the reference in paragraph 44ZZRD(4)(e) to paragraph (2)(e) or (f) included a reference to paragraph (2)(g) or (h); and (m) section 44ZZRD also provided that it is immaterial whether the identities of the corporations referred to in subsection (2) or (3) of that section can be ascertained; and (n) each reference in the following provisions of this Act: (i) Division 1 of Part IV (other than section 44ZZRD); (ii) any other provision (other than section 4, 44ZZRD, 151AE or 151AJ or this subsection or subsection (5A)) to the extent to which it relates to Division 1 of Part IV; to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. For the purposes of this subsection, likely and production have the same meaning as in Division 1 of Part IV. [Subs (2C) insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

(2D) [Additional effect of ss 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK, re postal service] In addition to the effect that this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has as provided by another subsection of this section, this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if: (a) sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK were, by express provision, confined in their operation to engaging in conduct to the extent to which the conduct involves the use of, or relates to, a postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other like service within the meaning of paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution; and (b) each reference in the following provisions of this Act: (i) Division 1 of Part IV; (ii) any other provision (other than section 4, 151AE or 151AJ or this subsection or subsection (5A)) to the extent to which it relates to Division 1 of Part IV; to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. [Subs (2D) insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

(2E) [Additional effect of ss 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK, re Territory/ Commonwealth place] In addition to the effect that this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has as provided by another subsection of this section, this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if: (a) sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK were, by express provision, confined in their operation to engaging in conduct to the extent to which the conduct takes place in, or relates to:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

153

CCA ss 1-6AA

(h)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s6 (i) (ii)

a Territory; or a Commonwealth place (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970); and (b) each reference in the following provisions of this Act: (i) Division 1 of Part IV; (ii) any other provision (other than section 4, 151AE or 151AJ or this subsection or subsection (5A)) to the extent to which it relates to Division 1 of Part IV; to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. [Subs (2E) insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

(2F) [Additional effect of Pt IVC] In addition to the effect that this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has as provided by another subsection of this section, this Act (other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X) has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if: (a) each reference in Part IVC to a payment surcharge were a reference to a payment surcharge charged for processing a payment made by means of a postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other like service (including electronic communication); and (b) each reference to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. [Subs (2F) insrt Act 9 of 2016, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 25 Feb 2016]

(3) [Additional effect of Pts 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4 and 5-3 of ACL] In addition to the effect that this Act, other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X, has as provided by another subsection of this section, the provisions of Parts 2-1, 2-2, 3-1 (other than Division 3), 3-3, 3-4, 4-1 (other than Division 3), 4-3, 4-4 and 5-3 of the Australian Consumer Law have, by force of this subsection, the effect they would have if: (a) those provisions (other than sections 33 and 155 of the Australian Consumer Law) were, by express provision, confined in their operation to engaging in conduct to the extent to which the conduct involves the use of postal, telegraphic or telephonic services or takes place in a radio or television broadcast; and (b) a reference in the provisions of Part XI to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. [Subs (3) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 37 and 38, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 36 (am Act 184 of 2011), with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 4 item 3; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 15; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 34; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 items 243 and 244; Act 106 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; Act 88 of 1995, s 37; Act 222 of 1992, s 19 and Sch 1; subst Act 17 of 1986, s 9]

(3A) [Additional effect of Pt 2-3 of ACL] In addition to the effect that this Act, other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X, has as provided by subsection (2), the provisions of Part 2-3 of the Australian Consumer Law have, by force of this subsection, the effect they would have if: (a) those provisions were, by express provision, confined in their operation to contracts for or relating to: (i) the use of postal, telegraphic or telephonic services; or (ii) radio or television broadcasts; and (b) a reference in the provisions of Part XI to a corporation included a reference to a person not being a corporation. [Subs (3A) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 39, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10]

154

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary s6 (4) [Additional effect of Pts 2-2, 3-1, 4-1 and 5-3 of ACL] In addition to the effect that this Act, other than Parts IIIA, VIIA and X, has as provided by another subsection of this section, the provisions of Parts 2-2, 3-1 (other than sections 30 and 33), Part 4-1 (other than sections 152, 155 and 164) and 5-3 of the Australian Consumer Law also have, by force of this subsection, the effect they would have if: (a) those provisions were, by express provision, confined in their operation to engaging in conduct in a Territory; and (b) a reference in those provisions to a thing done by a corporation in trade or commerce included a reference to a thing done in the course of the promotional activities of a professional person. [Subs (4) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 40, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 16; Act 126 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 35; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 245; Act 106 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4; Act 88 of 1995, s 37; Act 222 of 1992, s 19 and Sch 1; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 9]

(5) [Modification of ss 279, 282 and 283 of ACL] In the application of sections 279, 282 and 283 of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to a supplier who is a natural person, those sections have effect as if there were substituted for paragraphs 279(3)(a), 282(2)(a) and 283(5)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law the following paragraph: “(a) the supplier has died or is an undischarged bankrupt or a person whose affairs are being dealt with under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966; or” . (5A) [When body corporate convicted of an offence] Despite anything in section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG, if a body corporate other than a corporation is convicted of an offence against that section (as that section applies because of this section), the offence is taken to be punishable on conviction as if the body corporate were a corporation. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 17]

(5B) [Person convicted of an offence against ss 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG] Despite anything in section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG, if a person other than a body corporate is convicted of an offence against that section (as that section applies because of this section), the offence is taken to be punishable on conviction by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding 2,000 penalty units, or both. [Subs (5B) insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 17]

(6) [Repealed] [Subs (6) rep Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 45, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; am Act 117 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 16; insrt Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 246] [S 6 am Act 9 of 2016; Act 83 of 2014; Act 103 of 2013; Act 185 of 2011; Act 103 of 2010; Act 44 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8; Act 111 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 29; Act 59 of 2009; Act 126 of 2008; Act 131 of 2006; Act 134 of 2003; Act 117 of 2001; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 241; Act 69 of 2000; Act 61 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; Act 106 of 1998; Act 58 of 1997; Act 60 of 1996; Act 88 of 1995; Act 98 of 1993; Act 222 of 1992; Act 106 of 1992; Act 70 of 1990; Act 17 of 1986; Act 73 of 1980; Act 207 of 1978; Act 206 of 1978; Act 81 of 1977; Act 88 of 1976]

SECTION 6 COMMENTARY Outline ................................................................................................................................................ [CCA.6.20] Proposal for change ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.6.40] Concept: postal and telephonic services ........................................................................................... [CCA.6.60] Concept: professional persons .......................................................................................................... [CCA.6.80] Applicability to governments ............................................................................................................ [CCA.6.100]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

155

CCA ss 1-6AA

[Subs (5) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 41–44, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 5]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s6

[CCA.6.20]

Cases ............................................................................................................................................... [CCA.6.120]

[CCA.6.20]

Outline

This section is primarily a machinery provision designed to expand the operation of the Act, while at the same time preserving the legislation from constitutional invalidity if any of the provisions of the section transgress the boundaries of constitutional competence. The extended operation of the Act and the ACL given by s 6(2) does not remove the requirement that the prescribed conduct must, where the relevant so provides, be “in trade or commerce”: Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001] FCA 1106; (2001) 123 FCR 62 (Von Doussa J). [CCA.6.40]

Proposal for change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including removing from the end of s 6(2C) the words “likely and” so that, for the purposes of the extended definitions in that subsection, which applies to cartel conduct, the term “production” has the same meaning as in the cartel provisions, but the term “likely” does not. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not removal of this section will be included remains an open question. [CCA.6.60]

Concept: postal and telephonic services

Section 6(3)(a) extends the operation of the Act to conduct involving the use of postal, telegraphic or telephonic services. As Parliament intended the Act to have the widest application consistent with the limitations on the Commonwealth’s constitutional power, the words “telephonic services” are not limited to means of transmitting oral communications but extend to also include official directories published pursuant to the Telecommunications Act 1975 (Cth): Snyman v Cooper (1990) 24 FCR 433; 91 ALR 209; 16 IPR 585; [1990] ATPR 40-993. Note: The Telecommunications Act 1975 has been repealed, please see the Telecommunications Act 1997. The expression “postal, telegraphic or telephonic services” extends to conduct involving the use of the internet: Seafolly Pty Ltd v Madden [2012] FCA 1346 (Tracey J); ACCC v Jutsen (No 3) [2011] FCA 1352 (Nicholas J); ACCC v Hughes [2002] FCA 270; [2002] ATPR 41-863 (Allsop J). EXAMPLE • ACCC v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1412. The respondent conceded that misleading and deceptive articles published on the internet involved the use of telephonic services. • CPA Australia Ltd v Dunn [2007] FCA 1966; (2007) IPR 495; [2007] ATPR 42-205. The respondent’s threat to use a letterhead that included the words “Certified Public Accountant” when the respondent was not a member of the applicant or authorised by the applicant to use that designation was sufficient to enliven the Act on the basis that the contravening conduct involved the use of postal services, through one or other of the forms of letterhead that he had threatened to adopt. • ACCC v Chen [2003] FCA 897; (2003) 132 FCR 309; 201 ALR 40; [2003] ATPR 41-948; [2004] ASAL 55-110. Misleading and deceptive conduct by that an individual who operated internet sites in the US representing an association with the Sydney Opera House, and purported to accept credit card bookings for performances, was found to be within the scope of s 6 under the extended operation of the Act to telephonic services. • ACCC v Hughes [2002] FCA 270; [2002] ATPR 41-863; [2002] ASAL 55-078. The court had to consider Internet advertising of medical products, where the internet site was hosted in the United States, came within the scope of s 6 because the material constituting the

156

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part I – Preliminary [CCA.6.120]

s6

misrepresentations was on an internet site intended to be accessed by consumers in Australia and other parts of the world through the telephone. • Boland v Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209; 167 ALR 575. The High Court considered but did not have to decide, whether a former TPA s 52 claim (now ACL s 18) could be made against a barrister and a firm of solicitors based on advice provided by telephone and correspondence.

[CCA.6.80]

Concept: professional persons

Section 6(4) extends the operation of the consumer protection provisions of the Act (other than ACL ss 30 and 33 and Pt 3-1 Div 3; formerly TPA ss 53A and 55 and Pt V Div 1AAA) to apply to the promotional activities of professional persons. As a result, proceedings may be instituted against doctors, dentists, architects, engineers, accountants, chemists, teachers, solicitors and other professional persons who, in trade or commerce in any of the territories, engage in misleading or deceptive conduct “in the course of promotional activities”. In addition, incorporated professional practices will be liable generally as they are “corporations”. However, this proposition is now of relatively less importance as proceedings for breach of the Act can now be brought against individuals under State Fair Trading legislation which mirrors ACL Chs 1, 2, and 3 (formerly in TPA Pt V) or under the Competition Code in relation to restrictive trade practices breaches. Applicability to governments

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that the word “person” includes a body politic unless the legislation evidences a contrary intention. There is a contrary intention in relation to the term “person” in s 6(3) resulting from s 2A: Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334; 73 ALJR 522; 161 ALR 399; [1999] ATPR 41-682. [CCA.6.120]

Cases

The following cases provide examples of the operation of s 6: • Mineral Commodities Ltd v Promet Engineers Africa (Pty) Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 525. The applicant succeeded in obtaining an order for service outside Australia on individual respondents who were alleged to be personally involved in misleading conduct and to whom the Act applied as a result of the extended application under s 6. • Unilan Holdings Pty Ltd v Kerin (1992) 35 FCR 272; 107 ALR 709; [1992] ATPR 41-169. A claim under former TPA s 52 (ACL s 18) made against the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy arising from a speech made to an international conference was struck out because the speech was not made “in trade or commerce”. • Snyman v Cooper (1990) 24 FCR 433; 91 ALR 209; 16 IPR 585; [1990] ATPR 40-993. The court held that the words “telephonic services” in s 6(3) are not limited to means of transmitting oral communications but extend to also include official directories published pursuant to the Telecommunications Act 1975 (Cth) and accordingly an entry in the Yellow Pages, even if by individuals, is capable of breaching former TPA s 52 (ACLs 18): upheld on appeal Snyman v Cooper (No 2) (1990) 25 FCR 470; 97 ALR 653; 19 IPR 471; [1991] AIPC 90-753; [1990] ATPR 41-068. Note: The Telecommunications Act 1975 has been repealed; please see the Telecommunications Act 1997. • Haydon v Jackson [1988] ATPR 40-845. An agent was found personally liable for misrepresenting, over the telephone, the takings and occupancy rate of a motel he was engaged to sell. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

157

CCA ss 1-6AA

[CCA.6.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 6AA

[CCA.6.120] • Advanced Hair Studio Pty Ltd v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 1; 77 ALR 615; 10 IPR 97; [1987] ATPR 40-816. French J held that a person who gave an interview for a television programme engaged in conduct which took place in a radio or television broadcast. • Green v Ford [1985] ATPR 40-603; [1985] ASC 55-430. A publisher who was unincorporated was found to have breached former TPA s 53 (now ACL s 29) in relation to a magazine sent through the post: compare Swan v Downes (1978) 34 FLR 36; [1978] ATPR 40-068. • Dickson v Gallagher [1985] ATPR 40-550; [1985] ASC 55-410. In an interlocutory injunction application to restrain conduct in breach of former TPA s 52 (now ACL s 18), Wilcox J accepted that orders could be made notwithstanding that the respondent was not a corporation because of the operation of s 6(2)(h) and (3)(a). • Smolonogov v O’Brien (1982) 67 FLR 311; 44 ALR 347; [1982] ATPR 40-312. Former TPA s 53A(1)(b) (now ACL s 30(1)(b) – (g)) was held to apply to an individual who made representations in the course of the sale of a piece of land because the representations were made over the telephone. • Handley v Snoid [1981] ATPR 40-219. Former TPA s 52 (now ACL s 18) was held to apply to members of a pop band by virtue of the provisions of s 6(3) relating to television broadcasting.

6AA

Application of the Criminal Code

(1) [Chapter 2 of Criminal Code] Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) [Non-application of Pt 2.5 of Criminal Code] Despite subsection (1), Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code does not apply to an offence against Part IIIA or XIC, Division 7 of Part XIB, or section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG. [Subs (2) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 46, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 18] [S 6AA am Act 103 of 2010; Act 59 of 2009; insrt Act 146 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1]

SECTION 6AA COMMENTARY [CCA.6AA.20]

Outline

This section provides that the general principles of criminal responsibility set out in the Criminal Code apply to all offences under the Act. This means that those principles apply to offences under the ACL and to prosecutions for breach of the cartel provisions of Pt IV. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code are set out in the Criminal Code.

158

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

PART II – THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION [Pt II heading subst Act 88 of 1995, s 38 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 5 describes the design of the seal of the ACCC; • reg 6(1) states the ACCC is to maintain offices in all jurisdictions within Australia; • reg 6(2) requires the ACCC to notify any changes of address in the Gazette; and • reg 11 provides for service of documents on the ACCC.]

6A

Establishment of Commission

(1) [Establishment of ACCC] The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is established by this section. [Subs (1) subst Act 88 of 1995, s 39]

(1A) [Where ACCC deemed as non-corporate] However, the Commission is taken, for the purposes of the finance law (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013): (a) to be a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, and not to be a corporate Commonwealth entity; and (b) to be a part of the Commonwealth; and (c) not to be a body corporate. (2) [Properties of ACCC] The Commission: (a) is a body corporate, with perpetual succession; (b) shall have an official seal; (c) may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property; and (d) may sue or be sued in its corporate name. (3) [Property is held on behalf of Commonwealth] Any real or personal property held by the Commission is held for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. [Subs (3) insrt Act 148 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 6 item 1]

(4) [Money is received on behalf of Commonwealth] Any money received by the Commission is received for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. [Subs (4) insrt Act 148 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 6 item 1]

(5) [Right to sue not personal property] To avoid doubt, a right to sue is taken not to be personal property for the purposes of subsection (3). [Subs (5) insrt Act 148 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 6 item 1] [S 6A am Act 62 of 2014; Act 148 of 2010; Act 88 of 1995; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 8] [Editor’s Note: Act 148 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 6 items 2 and 3 provide: 2 Property held by Commission Any real or personal property that was held by the Commission immediately before this Schedule commences is taken, after this Schedule commences, to be real or personal property held by the Commission for and on behalf of the Commonwealth.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

159

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[Subs (1A) insrt Act 62 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 5 item 111, with effect from 1 Jul 2014]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 6A

[CCA.6A.20] 3

Right to sue To avoid doubt, the Commission’s right to sue is not affected by the amendment of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in accordance with this Schedule. Sch 6 commenced on 18 Dec 2010.]

SECTION 6A(2)(b) COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.6A.20] History of the Commissions ............................................................................................................. [CCA.6A.40] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.6A.60] ACCC priorities ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.6A.80] Guidelines and information circulars ............................................................................................. [CCA.6A.100] International cooperation ............................................................................................................... [CCA.6A.120] Other agreements with United States ........................................................................................... [CCA.6A.140] ACCC website ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.6A.160] ACCC addresses ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.6A.180] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.6A.200]

[CCA.6A.20]

Outline

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is the independent statutory authority responsible for administering the CCA. Its powers and functions, which are drawn from a wide range of provisions in the Act, include: • investigating possible breaches of the competition and consumer protection provisions of the Act and, where appropriate, bringing proceedings against those suspected of breaching the Act; • considering applications for immunity from the Act on a range of public interest grounds; • arbitrating on disputes over access to essential facilities and in the telecommunications industry; • assisting consumers who have suffered as a result of breaches of the Act to obtain compensation or redress; and • generally ensuring a culture of compliance with the Act through education and research. Although the ACCC is within the portfolio responsibility of the Treasurer, they have no power to direct the ACCC on how it is to fulfil its obligations. The Treasurer’s powers are limited to giving general directions to the ACCC under s 29. Members of the ACCC are appointed by the Governor-General for terms of up to 5 years. The Governor-General can only appoint Commissioners supported by a majority of the States and Territories. To access an online version of the ACCC’s current Annual Report visit http://www.accc.gov.au/ publications/accc-aer-annual-report. [CCA.6A.40]

History of the Commissions

A brief review of the origins of the Commission is in Miller: Australian Competition Law and Policy 2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012. The first chairman of the Commission, then named the Trade Practices Commission, was Ron Bannerman AO. For an article on the establishment of the Commission and Ron Bannerman’s leadership see Merrett, Corones & Round: The Introduction of Competition Policy in Australia: The Role of Ron Bannerman (2007) 47 Australian Economic History Review 178. The 2nd Chair of the Commission was Bob McComas. For an article on his contribution as Chair of the Commission see Corones, Merrett & Round: Bob McComas and the Trade Practices Commission: Doing it his Way (2005) 33 Australian business Law Review 475.

160

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.6A.120]

s 6A

The 3rd Chair of the Commission was Prof Bob Baxt AO. For an article on his contribution as Chair of the Commission see Corones, Merrett & Round: Building an Effective Trade Practices Commission: the Role of Professor Robert Baxt AO (2009) 49 Australian Economic History Review 138. The 4th Chair of the Commission was Prof Allan Fels. For an excellent social history of the Commission under his leadership, see Brenchley, Allan Fels – A Portrait of Power (Wiley, 2003). See also Spier, “Allan Herbert Miller Fels AO” (2007) 15 TPLJ 187. [CCA.6A.60]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that the ACCC should retain its competition and consumer functions. The Review recommended that half of the ACCC Commissioners be appointed on a part-time basis, that the Chair be appointed on either a full-time or a part-time basis and that the positions of Deputy Chair be abolished. The Government rejected this recommendation, stating that full‐time Commissioners are best placed to consider and take action on the varied and frequent decisions of the ACCC. It made no reference to the recommendation in relation to the positions of Deputy Chair. The Review also recommended that the requirements in the Act that the Minister, in making all appointments, be satisfied that the Commission has one Commissioner with knowledge or experience of small business matters (s 10(1B)) and one Commissioner with knowledge or experience of consumer protection matters (s 7(4)), be repealed. The Government rejected this recommendation, stating that a specific small business commissioner is an important aspect of the Government’s commitment to ensuring key regulatory bodies are enhanced by appointments with small business insights and experience. It added that the Government is also committed to the appointment of a specialist agriculture commissioner. The Review also recommended that price monitoring and surveillance functions should remain with the ACCC but the following functions should be transferred from the ACCC to a new national Access and Pricing Regulator: • the telecommunications access and pricing functions; • price regulation and related advisory roles under the Water Act 2007 (Cth); • powers under the National Access Regime.

[CCA.6A.80]

ACCC priorities

The ACCC publishes the ACCC Compliance and Enforcement Policy each February 2015. The 2016policy is accessible at: http://www.accc.gov.au/publications/compliance-and-enforcement-policy. [CCA.6A.100]

Guidelines and information circulars

The ACCC and its predecessor, the Trade Practices Commission, have issued information circulars and a number of general guidelines, copies of which are available from the Commission. [CCA.6A.120]

International cooperation

The ACCC is a participant in the International Competition Network. The International Competition Network (ICN) is a network of competition agencies which aims to provide agencies from developed and developing countries with a focused network for addressing practical antitrust enforcement and policy issues of common concern. Its members are the competition authorities in over 70 countries. The ICN facilitates procedural and substantive convergence in competition law enforcement. The Internet address for the ICN is http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

161

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

The Government announced that it remained open to this recommendation and would continue discussions with the States and Territories on how a new national framework could be developed to promote economic growth including the most appropriate institutional architecture to support reform.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 6A

[CCA.6A.120]

The ACCC has signed cooperation agreements with the countries listed in the table below. For the full text of these agreements see the online version of this work at [16.1] to [16.11] or the ACCC website at http://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/international-relations/treaties-agreements. Country Canada and NZ

Agencies Subject Matter Canadian Competition Notification, coordination and Bureau cooperation on competition and New Zealand Competition consumer protection enforcement Commission activities Peoples Republic of Ministry of Commerce Exchanges of information on issues China including definition of relevant markets, theory of harm, competitive impact assessment and the design of remedies. Workplan to share experience and practice. Peoples Republic of National Development Cooperation in training and China and Reform Commission advocating and promoting competition policy. Peoples Republic of State Administration for Cooperation in competition China Industry and Commerce enforcement, consumer protection and regulation of online transactions and related services through exchanges of policies, joint workshops, mutual visits and exchanges. Taiwan Chinese Taipei Fair Cooperation and coordination on Trading Commission the application of competition and fair trading laws Promote cooperation and Taiwan and New Taiwan Fair Trade coordination to lessen differences in Zealand Commission and New the application of competition and Zealand Commerce fair trading laws Commission Europe European Commission Government-to-Government administrative arrangement to facilitate information sharing on consumer policy and protection. Fiji Fiji Commerce Promote cooperation and Commission coordination of enforcement, training and technical assistance activities on consumer protection and competition issues

162

Date 25 October 2000

24 May 2014

5 November 2015 18 September 2012

13 September 1996 25 July 2002

21 March 2002

16 May 2002

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.6A.120]

Japan

Korea

New Zealand

New Zealand

New Zealand

New Zealand

New Zealand and the UK

Papua New Guinea

Agencies Competition Commission of India

Subject Matter Encourage the development of cooperative relationships through information sharing, technical cooperation and assistance in enforcement activities and policy developments. Notification of enforcement activities Fair Trade Commission likely to affect the interests of the of Japan other agency. Rendering assistance in enforcement activities to the extent consistent with laws and regulations. Fair Trade Commission Cooperation arrangement to of the Republic of Korea promote the effective enforcement of the competition and consumer protection laws New Zealand Commerce Sharing of information and Commission investigative assistance including protected information. New Zealand Commerce Sharing of information, documentaCommission tion and evidence to facilitate, inter alia, effective investigations and enforcement. New Zealand Commerce Cooperation protocol for review of Commission mergers under consideration in both countries. New Zealand Commerce Promote more effective resolution Commission of competition and consumer law issues by coordinating enforcement activities and sharing information New Zealand Commerce Cooperation with enforcement Commission activities that might affect interests UK Secretary of State for of the other Parties in competition Trade and Industry and consumer enforcement and investigation of mergers Consumer Affairs Council Promote cooperation in activities of Papua New Guinea related to the administration of competition and consumer protection laws

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

Date 3 June 2013

29 April 2015

29 September 2002

19 April 2013

31 July 2007

7 August 2006

July 1994

16 October 2003

26 November 1999

163

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

Country India

s 6A

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s7

[CCA.6A.120]

Country United Kingdom

Agencies Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Fair Trading

United States

US Federal Trade Commission

[CCA.6A.140]

Subject Matter The arrangement establishes a framework for notification, coordination and cooperation on competition and consumer protection enforcement activities, exchange of information and treatment of confidential information. Information exchange and enforcement cooperation on consumer protection matters

Date 16 October 2003

17 July 2000

Other agreements with United States

On 29 June 1982, Australia entered an agreement with the United States on cooperation in antitrust matters. In April 1999 Australia signed an agreement with the United States providing for mutual antitrust enforcement assistance. For the full text of the agreements see [16.2] or access agreement on the ACCC website at http://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/international-relations/treaties-agreements. [CCA.6A.160]

ACCC website

The ACCC has a website on which many of the Commission’s publications can be found, together with authorisation and notification determinations. The address is: http://www.accc.gov.au. [CCA.6A.180]

ACCC addresses

See [CCR.6.20]. [CCA.6A.200]

Further reading

For the ACCC’s priorities, see Sims, “Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Priorities” (2014) 22 AJCCL 184. For a review of the appointments to the ACCC and the Trade Practices Commission, see Spier, “Appointments to the Trade Practices Commission/Australian Competition and Consumer Commission” (2003) 11 TPLJ 187. See also Spier, “The Deputies: Never a Chairman Shall Be” (2004) 12 TPLJ 190; Spier, “TPC/ACCC: The Commissioners the Media Largely Ignored” (2005) 13 TPLJ 214. 7

Constitution of Commission

(1) [Composition of Commission] The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and such number of other members as are from time to time appointed in accordance with this Act. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 40]

(2) [Appointment of Commissioners] The members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor-General and shall be so appointed as full-time members. Note: A member of the Commission who is also appointed as an AER member remains a full-time member of the Commission: see section 44AN. [Subs (2) am Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7]

164

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.7.60]

s7

(3) [Prerequisites of appointment] Before the Governor-General appoints a person as a member of the Commission or as Chairperson, the Minister must: (a) be satisfied that the person qualifies for the appointment because of the person’s knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law, public administration or consumer protection; and (b) consider whether the person has knowledge of, or experience in, small business matters; and (c) if there is at least one fully-participating jurisdiction—be satisfied that a majority of such jurisdictions support the appointment. [Subs (3) am Act 106 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; am Act 88 of 1995, s 83; subst Act 88 of 1995, s 40]

(4) [Knowledge of consumer protection] At least one of the members of the Commission must be a person who has knowledge of, or experience in, consumer protection. [Subs (4) insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 40] [S 7 am Act 108 of 2004; Act 106 of 1998; Act 88 of 1995; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 8]

SECTION 7 COMMENTARY Current details: Chairperson .............................................................................................................. [CCA.7.20] Current details: members .................................................................................................................. [CCA.7.40] ACCC organisation structure ............................................................................................................. [CCA.7.60]

[CCA.7.20]

Current details: Chairperson

The Chairperson of the ACCC is Mr Rod Sims. Mr Sims, an economist, is a former deputy secretary in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and deputy secretary in the Department of Transport and Communications. More recently he has been a director of Port Jackson Partners. Mr Sims has served on the National Competition Council and as chair of the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. [CCA.7.40]

Current details: members

• Ms Sarah Court, formerly a lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor. She has served as Director of the AGS Adelaide and Darwin offices and Director of the AGS National Tax Practice and as the National Client Service Manager for the ACCC. Her appointment is until 2 May 2018. • Ms Cristina Cifuentes. Ms Cifuentes has been an ACCC Associate Commissioner and member of the Australian Energy Regulator. She is a lawyer and company director who had previously served on the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Ms Cifuentes was appointed in May 2013 for a 5-year term. • Mr Roger Featherston, a senior competition lawyer and former competition partner at Mallesons. His appointment is for 5 years from 12 June 2014. • Mick Keogh OAM, a former executive director of the Australian Farm Institute and Chair of the National Rural Advisory Council from 2012 to 2015. His appointment, announced on 24 February 2016, is for 5 years. [CCA.7.60]

ACCC organisation structure

Chief Operating Offıcer — • Rayne de Gruchy

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

165

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

The members, in addition to the Deputy Chairpersons, [CCA.10.20] are:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s7

[CCA.7.60]

Executives Merger and Authorisation Review Executive General Manager Rami Greiss (02) 6243 1226 • Adjudication – David Jones (02) 6243 1393 • Coordination and Strategy – Suzie Copley (07) 3835 4646 • Mergers Investigations – Tom Leuner (03) 9290 1890 Enforcement Executive General Manager, Competition Enforcement Marcus Bezzi (02) 9230 3894 or (02) 6243 1382 Executive General Manager, Consumer Enforcement Scott Gregson (02) 6243 1350 • ACT and National Projects – Richard Fleming (02) 6243 1278 • NSW and Serious Cartels Group – Rob Ghali (02) 9230 9144 • Northern Territory – Derek Farrell (08) 8946 9610 • WA & SA – Adam Jarvis (08) 9325 0601 • Qld – Melinda McDonald (07) 3835 4628 • VIC & Tas – Paul Zawa (03) 9290 1860 • Strategy, Intelligence, International and Advocacy – Bruce Cooper (02) 6243 1256 • Agricultural Enforcement and Engagement Unit – Gabrielle Ford (03) 9290 1942 • C Policy Implementation and Coordination – Sharon Clancy (02) 6243 1278 Consumer, Small Business and Product Safety Executive General Manager Nigel Ridgway (02) 6243 1223 • Consumer and Small Business Strategies – David Salisbury (03) 9290 1919 • Infocentre – Georgina McDonald (02) 6243 1193 • Consumer Product Safety – Neville Matthew (02) 6243 1066 Infrastructure Regulation Executive General Manager Michael Cosgrave (03) 9290 1914 • Industry Structure and Compliance – Sean Riordan (03) 9290 1889 • •Infrastructure and Transport - Access and Pricing – Matthew Schroder (03) 9290 6924 • Mobiles, Transmission and Consumer – Clare O’Reilly (02) 9230 3854 • Water and Wireline Markets – Robert Wright (03) 9290 1864 Australian Energy Regulator Chief Executive Officer Michelle Groves (03) 9290 1423

166

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.7.60] • • • • •

s 8A

Wholesale Markets – Peter Adams (03) 9290 1465 Retail Markets – Sarah Proudfoot (03) 9290 6965 Network Finance and Reporting – Warwick Anderson (02) 6243 1240 Network Investment and Pricing – Chris Pattas (03) 9290 1470 Network Opex and Coordination – Sebastian Roberts (03) 9290 1895

Legal and Economic Executive General Manager Tim Grimwade (02) 6243 1298 • General Counsel – Wendy Peter (03) 9290 1869 • Special Counsel – Peter Renehan (02) 9230 3817 • Chief Economist – Graeme Woodbridge (03) 9290 1977 • Specialist Economic Advisor – Darryl Biggar (03) 9290 1441 • Competition and Consumer Law – Verity Quinn (03) 9290 1868 • Mergers and Authorisation Law – Tanya Dunne (03) 9290 1843 • Corporate Law – Elissa Keen (02) 6243 1072 • Regulatory Law – Peter Toy (07) 3835 4625 • Economic – Richard Home (03) 9290 6960 8

Terms and conditions of appointment

(1) [Duration of office] Subject to this Part, a member of the Commission holds office for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as is specified in the instrument of his or her appointment and on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines, but is eligible for re-appointment. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 41]

(2) [Repealed] [Subs (2) rep Act 88 of 1995, s 41; am Act 81 of 1977] [S 8 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977]

Associate members

(1) [Minister may appoint associate members] The Minister may appoint persons to be associate members of the Commission. (1A) [Majority support] If there is at least one fully-participating jurisdiction, the Minister must not appoint a person as an associate member unless the Minister is satisfied that a majority of such jurisdictions support the appointment. [Subs (1A) subst Act 88 of 1995, s 84; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 42]

(2) [Duration of office] An associate member of the Commission shall be appointed for such period not exceeding 5 years as is specified in the instrument of his or her appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. (3) [Associate member terms and conditions] Subject to this Part, an associate member of the Commission holds office on such terms and conditions as the Minister determines.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

167

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

8A

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 8A

[CCA.8A.20]

(4) [Chair may deem associate as member] The Chairperson may, by writing signed by him or her, direct that, for the purposes of the exercise of the powers of the Commission under this Act in relation to a specified matter, not being an exercise of those powers by a Division of the Commission, a specified associate member of the Commission or specified associate members of the Commission shall be deemed to be a member or members of the Commission and, in that case, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this Act to a member of the Commission shall, for the purposes only of the exercise of the powers of the Commission in relation to that matter, be construed as including a reference to that associate member of the Commission or each of those associate members of the Commission, as the case may be. [Subs (4) am Act 88 of 1995, s 42]

(5) [Associate members are members for s 19] Associate members of the Commission shall be deemed to be members of the Commission for the purposes of section 19. (6) [Considerations for Chair while determining authorisation applications] For the purpose of the determination by the Commission of an application for an authorization or a clearance, or the making by the Commission of any decision for the purposes of subsection 93(3) or (3A) or 93AC(1) or (2), the Chairperson shall consider: (a) whether he or she should give a direction under subsection (4) of this section; or (b) in the case of a matter in relation to which the Chairperson proposes to give a direction under subsection 19(1), whether he or she should direct that the Division concerned is to include an associate member of the Commission or associate members of the Commission. [Subs (6) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 3 item 1; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4; Act 88 of 1995, s 7]

(7) [Associate members not to prepare s 171 reports] Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) deems an associate member of the Commission to be a member of the Commission for any purpose related to the preparation of a report by the Commission under section 171. [S 8A am Act 131 of 2006; Act 88 of 1995; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 10]

SECTION 8A COMMENTARY [CCA.8A.20] Current details: Associate Commissioners • Christopher Chapman, chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority. • Dr Mark Berry, chair of the New Zealand Commerce Commission. • Paula Conboy, Chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. • Jim Cox, Member, Australian Energy Regulator and former member of the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. 8AB

State/Territory AER members taken to be associate members

(1) [AER members are associate members] A State/Territory AER member is taken to be an associate member of the Commission during the period for which he or she is an AER member. Note: A State/Territory AER member who is taken to be an associate member of the Commission can still be appointed as an associate member under section 8A.

(2) [When AER member not taken to be associate member] However, a State/Territory AER member who is taken to be an associate member under subsection (1), is not taken to be an associate member for the purposes of sections 8A, 9, 14, 15 and 17.

168

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission s 10 (3) [Instrument of appointment specifies terms and conditions] As an associate member, the State/Territory AER member holds office on such terms and conditions as are specified in the instrument of his or her appointment under section 44AP. [S 8AB insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8]

9

Remuneration

(1) [Remuneration prescribed until determined by Tribunal] A member of the Commission shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, until that remuneration is so determined, he or she shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

(2) [Prescribed allowances] Subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, a member of the Commission shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) [Definition: member of the Commission] In this section, member of the Commission includes an associate member of the Commission. [Subs (3) insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 11] [S 9 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977 Cross-reference: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Allowances) Regulations: reg 3 prescribes the allowances payable to members of the ACCC are the same as those payable to an officer of the Australian Public Service for s 9(2).]

10

Deputy Chairpersons

(1) [Governor-General may appoint Deputy Chairperson] The Governor-General may appoint a person who is, or is to be, a member of the Commission to be a Deputy Chairperson of the Commission. [Subs (1) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 88 of 1995, s 43; Act 81 of 1977, s 12]

(1A) [Majority support required] If there is at least one fully-participating jurisdiction, the Governor-General must not appoint a person as a Deputy Chairperson unless the Governor-General is satisfied that a majority of such jurisdictions support the appointment. (1B) [Knowledge of small business] Before the Governor-General appoints a person as a Deputy Chairperson, the Minister must be satisfied that, immediately after the appointment, there will be at least one Deputy Chairperson who has knowledge of, or experience in, small business matters. [Subs (1B) insrt Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 3 item 7]

(2) [Duration of office] A person appointed under this section holds office as Deputy Chairperson until the expiration of his or her period of appointment as a member of the Commission or until he or she sooner ceases to be a member of the Commission. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, ss 43 and 91]

(3) [Eligibility for re-appointment] Where a member of the Commission appointed as Deputy Chairperson is, upon ceasing to be a Deputy Chairperson by virtue of the expiration of the period of his or her appointment as a member, re-appointed as a member, he or she is eligible for re-appointment as Deputy Chairperson. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, ss 43 and 91]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

169

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[Subs (1A) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; subst Act 88 of 1995, s 85; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 43]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 10

[CCA.10.20]

(4) [Resignation] A Deputy Chairperson may resign his or her office of Deputy Chairperson by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Governor-General. [Subs (4) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5; Act 88 of 1995, ss 43 and 91]

(5) [Deputy Chairpersons limited to two] Not more than 2 persons may hold office as Deputy Chairperson at any one time. [Subs (5) insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6] [S 10 am Act 116 of 2008; Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977]

SECTION 10 COMMENTARY [CCA.10.20]

Current details: Deputy Chairperson

The deputy chairpersons are: • Dr Michael Schaper, a former Dean of the Murdoch University Business School in Western Australia. Prior to that, he was the Small Business Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory. He is a former president of the Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand. Dr Schaper was re-appointed as a Deputy Chairperson for a 5-year term from 30 May 2013. • Delia Rickard PSM a former senior executive at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and a former head of the ACCC’s consumer protection branch. She was the founding chair of ASIC’s Corporate Social Responsibility program and led ASIC’s role in implementing the Government’s Super Choice program. Ms Rickard was appointed for a 5 year term on 4 June 2012. 11

Acting Chairperson

(1) [Interim arrangements] Where there is, or is expected to be, a vacancy in the office of Chairperson, the Governor-General may appoint a person to act as Chairperson until the filling of the vacancy. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (1) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 410, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; Act 88 of 1995, s 44; Act 17 of 1986, s 10] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(1A) [Repealed] [Subs (1A) rep Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 411, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 10] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(2) [Acting arrangements] Where the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia: (a) if there are 2 Deputy Chairpersons available to act as Chairperson, the Minister may appoint 1 of them to act as Chairperson during the absence of the Chairperson; or (b) if there is only 1 Deputy Chairperson available to act as Chairperson, that Deputy Chairperson is to act as Chairperson during the absence of the Chairperson; or

170

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission s 13 (c)

Note:

if there are no Deputy Chairpersons or none of the Deputy Chairpersons are available to act as Chairperson, the Minister may appoint a member of the Commission to act as Chairperson during the absence of the Chairperson, but any such appointment ceases to have effect if a person is appointed as a Deputy Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson becomes available to act as Chairperson.

For rules that apply to persons acting as the Chairperson, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

[Subs (2) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 412, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7; Act 88 of 1995, s 44; Act 88 of 1976, s 18 and Sch] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(3) [Acting Chairperson has powers of Chairperson] A person acting as Chairperson shall act in that capacity on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines and has all the powers and duties, and shall perform all the functions, conferred on the Chairperson by this Act. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, s 44] [S 11 am Act 46 of 2011; Act 159 of 2007; Act 88 of 1995; Act 17 of 1986; Act 88 of 1976]

12

Leave of absence

(1) [Recreation leave] A member of the Commission has such recreation leave entitlements as are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. [Subs (1) am Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 944]

(2) [Leave of absence] The Minister may grant a member of the Commission leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Minister determines. [S 12 am Act 146 of 1999; subst Act 122 of 1991, s 31 and Sch; am Act 81 of 1977; Act 88 of 1976]

13

Termination of appointment of members of the Commission

(2) [Additional reasons for termination] If a member of the Commission: (a) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; (b) fails to comply with his or her obligations under section 17; (c) without the consent of the Minister engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his or her office; or (d) is absent from duty, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; the Governor-General shall terminate the appointment of that member of the Commission. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 45; Act 206 of 1978, s 6] [S 13 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 206 of 1978; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 14; am Act 88 of 1976]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

171

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(1) [Misbehaviour or incapacity] The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a member of the Commission for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 14 14

Termination of appointment of associate members of the Commission

(1) [Misbehaviour or incapacity] The Minister may terminate the appointment of an associate member of the Commission for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. (2) [Additional reasons for termination] If an associate member of the Commission: (a) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) fails to comply with his or her obligations under section 17; the Minister shall terminate the appointment of that associate member of the Commission. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91] [S 14 am Act 88 of 1995; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 14]

15

Resignation

(1) [Resignation of member] A member of the Commission may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Governor-General. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

(2) [Resignation of associate member] An associate member of the Commission may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Minister. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 15] [S 15 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977]

16

Arrangement of business The Chairperson may give directions as to the arrangement of the business of the Commission.

[S 16 am Act 88 of 1995, s 46]

17

Disclosure of interests by members

(1) [Consent required for member participation] Where a member of the Commission other than the Chairperson is taking part, or is to take part, in the determination of a matter before the Commission and the member has or acquires any pecuniary interest that could conflict with the proper performance of his or her functions in relation to the determination of the matter: (a) the member shall disclose the interest to the Chairperson; and (b) the member shall not take part, or continue to take part, in the determination of the matter if: (i) the Chairperson gives a direction under paragraph (2)(a) in relation to the matter; or (ii) all of the persons concerned in the matter do not consent to the member taking part in the determination of the matter. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 47]

(2) [Where Chair aware of member conflict of interest] Where the Chairperson becomes aware that a member of the Commission is taking part, or is to take part, in the determination of a matter and that the member has in relation to the determination of the matter such an interest:

172

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission s 18 (a)

(b)

if the Chairperson considers that the member should not take part, or should not continue to take part, in the determination of the matter—the Chairperson shall give a direction to the member accordingly; or in any other case—the Chairperson shall cause the interest of the member to be disclosed to the persons concerned in the matter.

[Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 47]

(3) [Chairperson’s interests to be reported to Minister] The Chairperson shall give written notice to the Minister of all pecuniary interests that the Chairperson has or acquires in any business carried on in Australia or in any body corporate carrying on any such business. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, s 47]

(4) [Definition: member of the Commission] In this section, member of the Commission includes an associate member of the Commission. [S 17 am Act 88 of 1995; subst Act 17 of 1986, s 11; am Act 81 of 1977; Act 88 of 1976]

18

Meetings of Commission

(1) [Efficient performance of Commission] Subject to this section, the Chairperson shall convene such meetings of the Commission as he or she thinks necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 48]

(2) [Location of meetings] Meetings of the Commission shall be held at such places as the Chairperson determines. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 48]

(3) [Chairperson to preside] The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission at which he or she is present. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, s 48]

[Subs (4) subst Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8; am Act 88 of 1995, s 48]

(5) [Presiding member may give procedural directions] Subject to this Act and the regulations, the member presiding at a meeting of the Commission may give directions regarding the procedure to be followed at or in connexion with the meeting. (6) [Voting at Commission meetings] At a meeting of the Commission: (a) three members (including the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson) form a quorum; (b) all questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting; and (c) the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. [Subs (6) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9; Act 88 of 1995, s 48]

(7) [Methods of communication] If the Commission so determines, a member or members may participate in, and form part of a quorum at, a meeting of the Commission or a Division of the Commission by means of any of the following methods of communication:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

173

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(4) [Acting arrangements] In the absence of the Chairperson from a meeting of the Commission: (a) if there are 2 Deputy Chairpersons available to preside at the meeting—the Chairperson may nominate 1 of them to preside at the meeting; or (b) if there is only 1 Deputy Chairperson available to preside at the meeting—that Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 18 (a) (b) (c)

telephone; closed circuit television; another method of communication determined by the Commission.

[Subs (7) insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 12]

(8) [Subsection (7) determination: made for particular or all meetings] A determination made by the Commission under subsection (7) may be made in respect of a particular meeting or meetings of the Commission or a Division of the Commission or in respect of all meetings of the Commission or a Division of the Commission. [Subs (8) insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 12] [S 18 am Act 159 of 2007; Act 88 of 1995; Act 17 of 1986]

19

Chairperson may direct Commission to sit in Divisions

(1) [Division may exercise Commission powers] The Chairperson may, by writing signed by him or her, direct that the powers of the Commission under this Act in relation to a matter shall be exercised by a Division of the Commission constituted by the Chairperson and such other members (not being less than two in number) as are specified in the direction. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 49]

(2) [Chairperson may revoke or amend direction] Where the Chairperson has given a direction under subsection (1), he or she may, by writing signed by him or her, at any time before the Division of the Commission specified in the direction has made a determination in relation to the matter, revoke the direction or amend the direction in relation to the membership of the Division or in any other respect, and where the membership of a Division of the Commission is changed, the Division as constituted after the change may complete the determination of the matter. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 49]

(3) [Division specified in direction] For the purposes of the determination of a matter specified in a direction given under subsection (1), the Commission shall be deemed to consist of the Division of the Commission specified in the direction. (4) [Chairperson attendance not required] The Chairperson is not required to attend a meeting of a Division of the Commission if he or she does not think fit to do so. [Subs (4) am Act 88 of 1995, s 49]

(5) [Acting arrangements] At a meeting of a Division of the Commission at which neither the Chairperson nor a Deputy Chairperson is presiding, a member of the Commission nominated for the purpose by the Chairperson shall preside. [Subs (5) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10; Act 88 of 1995, s 49]

(6) [Quorum] Notwithstanding section 18, at a meeting of a Division of the Commission, two members form a quorum. (7) [Multiple Divisions of Commission operate concurrently] A Division of the Commission may exercise powers of the Commission under this Act notwithstanding that another Division of the Commission is exercising powers of the Commission at the same time. [S 19 am Act 159 of 2007; Act 88 of 1995]

174

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission s 25

[CCA.19.20]

SECTION 19 COMMENTARY [CCA.19.20]

Committees

The ACCC has established a number of Committees to streamline its decision-making processes. They are as follows: Committee Enforcement

Mergers Communications

Regulated Access and Price Monitoring Adjudication

20

Function Oversees the ACCC’s enforcement program. Recommendations are referred to the full Commission for decision. Also oversees the ACCC’s court actions, including strategy and case management review. Meets weekly. Considers most merger matters and reports to the full Commission. Meets weekly. Oversees functions on telecommunications, including matters arising under Pts XIB and XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and authorisations. Meets as required. Coordinates with the enforcement committee. Oversees access and price monitoring issues. Meets as required. Considers authorisations and notifications and reports to the full Commission. Meets weekly.

Part XI of the Audit Act not to apply to Commission [Repealed]

[S 20 rep Act 152 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1260; reinsrt Act 88 of 1995, s 50; rep Act 81 of 1977, s 17]

Editor’s note: Sections 21–24 were repealed by Act 81 of 1977, s 17 and have not been reproduced.

Delegation by Commission

(1) [Powers of delegation] The Commission may, by resolution, delegate to a member of the Commission, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, any of its powers under this Act (other than Part VIIA or section 152ELA), Procedural Rules under Part XIC, the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, the Water Act 2007, Rules of Conduct under Part 20 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011, regulations under the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011, or the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, other than this power of delegation and its powers to grant, revoke or vary an authorization or a clearance. Note: Section 95ZD allows the Commission to delegate certain powers under Part VIIA to a member of the Commission. [Subs (1) am Act 23 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 25, with effect from 13 Apr 2011; Act 138 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5; Act 119 of 2005, s 3 and Sch 7 item 1; Act 69 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 25; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 items 36 and 37; Act 52 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 3 item 69; Act 58 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

175

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

25

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 25

[CCA.25.20]

(2) [Instrument of delegation] A power so delegated may be exercised or performed by the delegate in accordance with the instrument of delegation. (3) [Delegation is revocable] A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Commission. [S 25 am Act 23 of 2011; Act 138 of 2007; Act 131 of 2006; Act 119 of 2005; Act 69 of 2004; Act 134 of 2003; Act 52 of 1999; Act 58 of 1997]

SECTION 25 COMMENTARY [CCA.25.20]

Delegations

The form in which a delegation by the ACCC is recorded in its Minutes will not determine whether or not a formal delegation in accordance with the Act has been made. This will be determined by consideration of all of the facts: ACCC v Rural Press Ltd (2000) 96 FCR 389; 169 ALR 573; [2000] FCA 66; [2000] ATPR 41-753. The ACCC is entitled to delegate both its power to issue notices under s 155 and the function of taking evidence under that section to an individual Commissioner: ACCC v Rural Press Ltd (2000) 96 FCR 389; 169 ALR 573; [2000] FCA 66; [2000] ATPR 41-753. 26

Delegation by Commission of certain functions and powers

(1) [Delegation to ASIC] The Commission may, by resolution, delegate: (a) any of its functions and powers under or in relation to Parts VI and XI and the Australian Consumer Law; and (b) any of its powers under Part XII that relate to those Parts or the Australian Consumer Law; to a staff member of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission within the meaning of section 5 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. [Subs (1) subst Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 47, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 552; Act 31 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 247]

(2) [Agreement of ASIC Chairperson to delegation] The Commission must not delegate a function or power under subsection (1) unless the Chairperson of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has agreed to the delegation in writing. [S 26 am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 47, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 55 of 2001; Act 31 of 2001; reinsrt Act 48 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 2 item 25; rep Act 65 of 1985, s 3 and Sch 1; am Act 81 of 1977]

27

Staff of Commission

(1) [Engagement under Public Service Act 1999] The staff necessary to assist the Commission shall be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999. [Subs (1) am Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 945; Act 88 of 1995, s 51]

(2) [Chairperson and staff constitute Statutory Agency] For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999: (a) the Chairperson of the Commission and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency. [Subs (2) subst Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 946; am Act 88 of 1995, s 51; Act 63 of 1984, s 151 and Sch 4]

176

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.27A.20]

s 28

(3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 946; am Act 88 of 1995, s 51; Act 63 of 1984, s 151 and Sch 4] [S 27 am Act 146 of 1999; Act 88 of 1995; Act 63 of 1984]

SECTION 27 COMMENTARY Current details: Senior ACCC Executives ....................................................................................... [CCA.27.20] ACCC addresses ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.27.40]

[CCA.27.20]

Current details: Senior ACCC Executives

See [CCA.7.60]. [CCA.27.40]

ACCC addresses

See Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 reg 6; [CCR.6.20]. 27A

Consultants

(1) [Services for Commission] On behalf of the Commonwealth, the Commission may engage persons to give advice to, and perform services for, the Commission. (2) [Consultant terms and conditions] The terms and conditions of engagement are as determined by the Commission. [S 27A insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 52]

SECTION 27A COMMENTARY [CCA.27A.20]

Consultants

28 Functions of Commission in relation to dissemination of information, law reform and research (1) [Commission’s awareness and research obligations] In addition to any other functions conferred on the Commission, the Commission has the following functions: (a) to make available to persons engaged in trade or commerce and other interested persons general information for their guidance with respect to the carrying out of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Commission under this Act; (b) to examine critically, and report to the Minister on, the laws in force in Australia relating to the protection of consumers in respect of matters referred to the Commission by the Minister, being matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws; (c) to conduct research in relation to matters affecting the interests of consumers, being matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws; (ca) to conduct research and undertake studies on matters that are referred to the Commission by the Council and that relate to the Commission’s other functions;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

177

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

A list of the consultants engaged by the ACCC, and the amounts over $10,000 paid to each consultant, can be located on the ACCC website at: http://www.accc.gov.au.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 28

[CCA.28.20] (d)

to make available to the public general information in relation to matters affecting the interests of consumers, being matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws; (e) to make known for the guidance of consumers the rights and obligations of persons under provisions of laws in force in Australia that are designed to protect the interests of consumers.

[Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 53; Act 81 of 1977, s 19; Act 88 of 1976, s 18 and Sch]

(2) [Publication of notice] Where a matter of a kind mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is referred by the Minister to the Commission for examination and report: (a) the Commission shall cause to be published in the Gazette and in such newspapers and other journals as the Commission considers appropriate a notice: (i) stating that the reference has been made and specifying the matter to which the reference relates; and (ii) inviting interested persons to furnish to the Commission their views on that matter and specifying the time and manner within which those views are to be furnished; (b) the Commission shall not furnish its report to the Minister until a reasonable opportunity has been given to interested persons to furnish to the Commission their views on the matter to which the reference relates; and (c) the Commission shall include in its report to the Minister any recommendations that it considers desirable with respect to the reform of the law relating to the matter to which the reference relates, whether those recommendations relate to the amendment of existing laws or the making of new laws. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1976, s 18 and Sch]

(3) [Minister to lay report before Parliament] The Minister shall cause a copy of each report furnished to him or her by the Commission in relation to a matter referred to the Commission under paragraph (1)(b) to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the report is received by him or her. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; Act 88 of 1976, s 18 and Sch] [S 28 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977; Act 88 of 1976]

SECTION 28 COMMENTARY ACCC website .................................................................................................................................. [CCA.28.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.28.40] Guidelines and information circulars ................................................................................................ [CCA.28.60] Annual Reports ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.28.80] Small business ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.28.100] Other reports .................................................................................................................................. [CCA.28.120] ACCC press releases .................................................................................................................... [CCA.28.140] Judicial review ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.28.160]

[CCA.28.20]

ACCC website

The ACCC has established a website on which many of the Commission’s publications can be found, together with merger clearance, authorisation and notification determinations. The address is http:// www.accc.gov.au. The website also includes the ACCC media releases, its annual reports, Commissioner speaches and information on its international activities.

178

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.28.120] [CCA.28.40]

s 28 Proposals for Change

The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) recommended the establishment of an Australian Council for Competition Policy (see [CCA.29A.40]) to have the power to undertake competition studies of markets in Australia and to make recommendations to relevant governments on changes to regulation, or to the ACCC for investigation of potential breaches of the Act. In a cautiously worded response issued on 24 November 2015, the Government stated that it supports the need for a body to oversee progress on competition reform and will discuss its design, role and mandate with the States and Territories. The Government also stated that it “remains open” to a recommendation that governments, jointly or individually, should have the capacity to issue references for competition studies of a particular market or competition issue. And that market participants (including small business and regulators including the ACCC), should have the authority to request such studies. [CCA.28.60]

Guidelines and information circulars

In accordance with its obligation under this section, the ACCC and its predecessor, the Trade Practices Commission, issues information circulars and general guidelines, copies of which are available from the Commission and on its website. These include: • Compliance and Enforcement Policy (19 February 2015). • ACCC immunity & cooperation policy for cartel conduct (10 September 2014). • Authorisation Guidelines (1 July 2013). • Merger Guidelines (21 November 2008) and Informal Merger Review Process Guidelines (26 September 2013): see [17] and [17A]. [CCA.28.80]

Annual Reports

The ACCC publishes an Annual Report each year which contains a summary of major trade practices developments during the year under review, statistical information relating to the applications dealt with by the Commission since the Act came into force, a brief summary of all cases in relation to which the Commission has been or is a party, and a summary of private actions which have been brought or are pending in relation to the Act. Small business

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), in which it stated that it supported the ACCC taking steps to improve its communications with small businesses (and complainants more generally), adding that the Government had asked the ACCC to consider introducing changes to improve transparency and clarity for small businesses on why it is unable to pursue certain complaints. The Government stated that it will continue to liaise with the ACCC with a view to enhancing public disclosure of operational procedures and decision-making processes where it is appropriate and feasible to do so, and will ask the ACCC to consider how it can more actively connect small businesses to alternative dispute resolution schemes where appropriate. [CCA.28.120]

Other reports

The ACCC and its predecessor, the Trade Practices Commission, has prepared a number of reports and discussion papers, including pricing pricing reports pursuant to s 95H at the direction of the relevant Minister. They have included: • Report of the ACCC inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries (July 2008). • Report of an inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol (December 2007). Although the ACCC is entitled to conduct inquiries into specific issues or industries as part of its mandate to conduct research under s 28, it does not have power to compel witnesses or the production of

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

179

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[CCA.28.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29

[CCA.28.120]

information except when undertaking pricing inquiries or price monitoring directed by the Minister under ss 95H, 95ZE or 95ZF, or where the ACCC has reason to believe a contravention may have occured: ss 95ZK, 155. [CCA.28.140]

ACCC press releases

The ACCC follows the practice of issuing media releases, published on its website, when it initiates proceedings or obtains a court order. This practice, which can be justified by s 28, has in the past been criticised by other parties to proceedings. In Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [1998] FCA 1560; [1999] ATPR 41-669 the applicant challenged an ACCC media release on several grounds, including that it was misleading and deceptive, involved misuse of market power and was an abuse of statutory power. The court struck out the statement of claim as pleaded. Subsequently the respondent sought to attack the media releases as defamatory. The challenge was unsuccessful: ACCC v Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1161; (1999) 95 FCR 302; 166 ALR 74; [1999] ASAL 55-040; [1999] ATPR 41-718. [CCA.28.160]

Judicial review

In exercising its functions under s 28 the ACCC is not immune from judicial review: Electricity Supply Assn of Australia Ltd v ACCC [2001] FCA 1296; (2001) 113 FCR 230; 68 ALD 107; [2001] ATPR 41-838 at [111] (FCA), 43,368 (ATPR). 29 Commission to comply with directions of Minister and requirements of the Parliament (1) [Minister may give Commission directions] The Minister may give the Commission directions connected with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act. [Subs (1) subst Act 88 of 1995, s 54; am Act 17 of 1986, s 13; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 20; am Act 88 of 1976]

(1A) [When Minister must not give directions] The Minister must not give directions under subsection (1) relating to: (a) Part IIIA, IV, VII, VIIA, X, XIB or XIC; or (b) Division 3 of Part XI in relation to individual cases. [Subs (1A) am Act 103 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 48, with effect from 1 Jan 2011; Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 38; Act 123 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1; Act 58 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 54]

(1B) [Compliance with directions] The Commission must comply with a direction. [Subs (1B) insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 54]

(2) [Direction to be published in Gazette] Any direction given to the Commission under subsection (1) shall be in writing and the Minister shall cause a copy of the direction to be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after the direction is given. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1976, s 18 and Sch]

(3) [Compliance with Parliamentary information request] If either House of the Parliament or a Committee of either House, or of both Houses, of the Parliament requires the Commission to furnish to that House or Committee any information concerning the performance of the functions of the Commission under this Act, the Commission shall comply with the requirement. [S 29 am Act 103 of 2010; Act 134 of 2003; Act 123 of 2000; Act 58 of 1997; Act 88 of 1995; Act 17 of 1986; Act 81 of 1977; Act 88 of 1976]

180

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part II – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [CCA.29.20]

s 29

SECTION 29 COMMENTARY [CCA.29.20]

Outline

Section 29 entitles the Minister to give the ACCC directions in connection with the performance of its functions, but not relating to its functions under the restrictive trade practices provisions (Pt IV), the access provisions (Pt IIIA), authorisations or notifications (Pt VII) or the telecommunications provisions (Pts XIB and XIC). On 15 January 2000 the Minister for Financial Services directed the ACCC not to approve any business initiatives on the GST that may increase prices by more than 10%.

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

On 25 August 1998 (Gazette No 35 of 1998) the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs directed the ACCC to: • initiate proceedings in actions based on alleged contraventions of the Act for the purpose of establishing legal precedent under former TPA s 51AC (ACL s 22) on matters of specific relevance to small business; • give preference to initiating proceedings as representative proceedings on behalf of small business; • account specifically in its Annual Report for the manner of expenditure of additional annual funding of $480,000 to be provided over the following 4 years, where that funding is expended on actions under former TPA s 51AC (ACL s 22); and • report quarterly on complaints received from small business and action taken on those complaints.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

181

PART IIA – THE NATIONAL COMPETITION COUNCIL [Part IIA insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29AA

Definitions [Repealed]

[S 29AA rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 64; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

29A

Establishment of Council

The National Competition Council is established by this section. [S 29A insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

SECTION 29A COMMENTARY Background .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.29A.20] Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................... [CCA.29A.40]

[CCA.29A.20]

Background

The National Competition Council (NCC) is an independent statutory authority established primarily to assess progress made by State and Territory governments in opening their agencies undertaking business activities up to competition and to make recommendations to the federal Government on compensation payments to be made under the Implementation Agreement as a result.

The NCC was established in November 1995. [CCA.29A.40]

Proposals for Change

On 31 March 2015, the government released the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review). The Review recommended that the National Competition Council be dissolved and an Australian Council for Competition Policy established with a mandate to provide leadership and to drive implementation of the evolving competition policy agenda. In a cautiously worded response, the Government stated that it supports the need for a body to oversee progress on competition reform and will discuss its design, role and mandate with the States and Territories. The Government also stated that it “remains open” to a recommendation that governments, jointly or individually, should have the capacity to issue references for competition studies of a particular market or competition issue. And that market participants (including small business and regulators including the ACCC), should have the authority to request such studies. The Review also recommended that the NCC’s powers under the National Access Regime and the National Gas Law be transferred from the NCC to a new national Access and Pricing Regulator, a proposal to which the Government also remains open. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

183

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

The NCC has two additional main roles: • providing advice on the design and coverage of access rules and recommending to the federal Treasurer and to the responsible State and Territory Ministers, the declaration of services under the essential facilities provisions of Pt IIIA of the CCA; and • community education and communication covering both specific reform implementation matters and National Competition Policy generally.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29B

29B

[CCA.29B.20]

Functions and powers of Council

(1) [NCC functions include advice and research] The Council’s functions include: (a) carrying out research into matters referred to the Council by the Minister; and (b) providing advice on matters referred to the Council by the Minister. (2) [NCC powers conferred by Commonwealth and State laws] The Council may: (a) perform any function conferred on it by a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory; and (b) exercise any power: (i) conferred by that law to facilitate the performance of that function; or (ii) necessary or convenient to permit the performance of that function. [Subs (2) subst Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 12]

(2A) [Competition Principles Agreement] The Council must not, under subsection (2): (a) perform a function conferred on it by a law of a State or Territory; or (b) exercise a power that is so conferred; unless the conferral of the function or power is in accordance with the Competition Principles Agreement. [Subs (2A) insrt Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 12]

(2B) [State/Territory energy laws excluded] Subsection (2) does not apply to a State/Territory energy law. Note: Section 29BA provides that a State/Territory energy law may confer functions or powers, or impose duties, on the Council. [Subs (2B) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 65; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

(3) [Co-operation with other Departments] In performing its functions, the Council may co-operate with a department, body or authority of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. [Subs (3) am Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13] [S 29B am Act 45 of 2007; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

SECTION 29B COMMENTARY [CCA.29B.20]

Outline

Originally the most important function of the Council was to assess progress made by State and Territory governments in opening their agencies undertaking business activities up to competition and to make recommendations to the federal Government on compensation payments to be made as a result. However, that role has effectively come to an end. The Council’s main function is to recommend to the federal Treasurer and to the responsible State and Territory Ministers, the declaration of services under the essential facilities provisions of Pt IIIA.

184

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIA – The National Competition Council s 29BB

29BA

Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on Council

(1) [State/Territory energy law may confer functions on NCC] A State/Territory energy law may confer functions or powers, or impose duties, on the Council for the purposes of that law. Note: Section 29BC sets out when such a law imposes a duty on the Council. [Subs (1) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 66]

(2) [Limits of conferral] Subsection (1) does not authorise the conferral of a function or power, or the imposition of a duty, by a State/Territory energy law to the extent to which: (a) the conferral or imposition, or the authorisation, would contravene any constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Council; or (b) the authorisation would otherwise exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth. [Subs (2) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 66]

(3) [Agreement between State/Territory and Commonwealth] The Council cannot perform a duty or function, or exercise a power, under a State/Territory energy law unless the conferral of the function or power, or the imposition of the duty, is in accordance with an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State or Territory concerned. [Subs (3) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 66] [S 29BA am Act 45 of 2007; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

29BB

How duty is imposed

Application (1) This section applies if a State/Territory energy law purports to impose a duty on the Council. Note: Section 29BC sets out when such a law imposes a duty on the Council. [Subs (1) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 66]

(2) The duty is taken not to be imposed by this Part (or any other law of the Commonwealth) to the extent to which: (a) imposing the duty is within the legislative powers of the State or Territory concerned; and (b) imposing the duty by the law of the State or Territory is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Council. Note: If this subsection applies, the duty will be taken to be imposed by force of the law of the State or Territory (the Commonwealth having consented under section 29BA to the imposition of the duty by that law).

Commonwealth legislative power suffıcient to support duty but State or Territory legislative powers are not (3) If, to ensure the validity of the purported imposition of the duty, it is necessary that the duty be imposed by a law of the Commonwealth (rather than by the law of the State or Territory), the duty is taken to be imposed by this Part to the extent necessary to ensure that validity. (4) [Parliament to rely on constitutional powers] If, because of subsection (3), this Part is taken to impose the duty, it is the intention of the Parliament to rely on all powers available to it under the Constitution to support the imposition of the duty by this Part.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

185

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

State or Territory legislative power suffıcient to support duty

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29BB

[CCA.29C.20]

(5) [Extent of imposition of duty] The duty is taken to be imposed by this Part in accordance with subsection (3) only to the extent to which imposing the duty: (a) is within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth; and (b) is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Council. (6) [Section 29BA not limited] Subsections (1) to (5) do not limit section 29BA. [S 29BB am Act 45 of 2007; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

29BC

When a State/Territory energy law imposes a duty

For the purposes of sections 29BA and 29BB, a State/Territory energy law imposes a duty on the Council if: (a) the law confers a function or power on the Council; and (b) the circumstances in which the function or power is conferred give rise to an obligation on the Council to perform the function or to exercise the power. [S 29BC am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 66; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

29C

Membership of Council

(1) [Constitution of Council] The Council consists of the Council President and up to 4 other Councillors. (2) [5 year terms] Each Councillor is to be appointed by the Governor-General, for a term of up to 5 years. (3) [Appointment must satisfy Governor-General] The Governor-General must not appoint a person as a Councillor or Council President unless the Governor-General is satisfied that: (a) the person qualifies for the appointment because of the person’s knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law, consumer protection or public administration; and (b) a majority of the States and Territories that are parties to the Competition Principles Agreement support the appointment. [S 29C insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

SECTION 29C COMMENTARY Current details: membership ......................................................................................................... [CCA.29C.20] Current details: address ................................................................................................................ [CCA.29C.40] National Competition Council’s website ........................................................................................ [CCA.29C.60]

[CCA.29C.20]

Current details: membership

The current members of the Council are: President • Julie-Anne Schafer – Ms Schafer is director of Catholic Church Insurance Ltd, Aviation Australia Pty Ltd, and Collection House Ltd. She was previously Chair of RACQ and RACQ Insurance, a non-executive director of Queensland Rail, and a National Transport Commissioner. Appointed until 17 December 2018.

186

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIA – The National Competition Council [CCA.29C.60]

s 29E

Councillors • Linda Evans – Ms Evans is a competition partner at Clayton Utz and a former chair of the firm. She is a member of the editorial board of Competition Law International, the Journal of the Antitrust Committee of the International Bar Association and a director of Cycling Australia. Appointed until August 2016. • Martin Wallace – Mr Wallace is a former Secretary of the Tasmania Department of Treasury and Finance. He is an experienced board member and has been a director of Aurora Energy Pty Ltd, Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation and Tastel Ltd. Appointed until 17 December 2018. [CCA.29C.40]

Current details: address

The Council’s secretariat is provided by the ACCC and is based in the ACCC’s Melbourne office at: Level 35 360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Phone: 03 9290 6960 The Executive Director of the NCC is Richard Home, General Manager Economic Group, ACCC ([email protected]). [CCA.29C.60]

National Competition Council’s website

The National Competition Council’s website is at http://www.ncc.gov.au. 29D

Terms and conditions of office

(1) [Full-time or part-time appointments] A Councillor may be appointed to hold office on either a full-time or a part-time basis. (2) [Governor-General determines additional terms and conditions] A Councillor holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in respect of matters not provided for by this Act as the Governor-General determines. [S 29D insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

Acting Council President

The Minister may appoint a Councillor to act as the Council President: (a) if there is a vacancy in the office of Council President, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Council President is absent from duty or absent from Australia or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [S 29E am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 413–415, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

187

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

29E

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29F 29F

Remuneration of Councillors

(1) [Remuneration prescribed until determined by Tribunal] A Councillor is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of the Remuneration Tribunal is in operation, the Councillor is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (2) [Prescribed allowances] A Councillor is to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) [Remuneration Tribunal Act] This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. [S 29F insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29G

Leave of absence

(1) [Recreation leave] A full-time Councillor has such recreation leave entitlements as are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. [Subs (1) am Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 947]

(2) [Leave other than recreation leave] The Minister may grant a full-time Councillor leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as the Minister determines. The terms and conditions may include terms and conditions relating to remuneration. [S 29G am Act 146 of 1999; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29H

Termination of appointment of Councillors

(1) [Misbehaviour or incapacity] The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Councillor for misbehaviour or for physical or mental incapacity. (2) [Additional reasons for termination] The Governor-General must terminate the appointment of a Councillor who: (a) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; (b) fails to comply with his or her obligations under section 29K; (c) in the case of a full-time Councillor—engages in any paid employment outside the duties of the Councillor’s office without the consent of the Minister; (d) in the case of a full-time Councillor—is absent from duty, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months. [S 29H insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29I

Resignation of Councillors

A Councillor may resign by giving the Governor-General a signed resignation notice. [S 29I insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

188

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIA – The National Competition Council [CCA.29J.20] 29J

s 29K

Arrangement of Council business

(1) [Council President may give directions] Subject to subsection (2), the Council President may give directions about the arrangement of the Council’s business. (2) [Council work programs] The Council must not carry out any work (other than work relating to a function under Part IIIA or VIIA) except in accordance with a program agreed to by: (a) a majority of the parties to the Competition Principles Agreement; or (b) if the parties to the Agreement are evenly divided on the question of agreeing to a program—the Commonwealth. [Subs (2) am Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 2 item 39] [S 29J am Act 134 of 2003; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

SECTION 29J COMMENTARY [CCA.29J.20]

Organisational chart

President: • Julie-Anne Schafer. Ms Schafer is a lawyer. She has been the Deputy Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology. She has over 15 years of directorship experience in diverse and highly regulated sectors, including road and rail transport. Her appointment is until 18 December 2018. Members: • Linda Evans: a partner (and former chair) at law firm Clayton Utz. Ms Evans is on the editorial board, Competition Law International, the Journal of the Antitrust Committee of the International Bar Association and a director of Cycling Australia. She has been a member of the NCC since 2013 and her current term expires in December 2017. • Martin Wallace: an economist and former Secretary of the Tasmania Department of Treasury and Finance. He has been a director of Aurora Energy Pty Ltd, Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation and Tastel Ltd. His appointment is until 18 December 2018.

29K

Disclosure of interests by Councillors

(1) [Conflict of interest] If a Councillor (except the Council President) is taking part, or is to take part, in the Council’s consideration of a matter and the Councillor has or acquires any pecuniary interest that could conflict with the proper performance of his or her functions relating to the matter: (a) the Councillor must disclose the interest to the Council President; and (b) the Councillor must not take part, or continue to take part, in the consideration of the matter if: (i) all of the persons concerned in the matter do not consent to the Councillor taking part in the consideration of the matter; or (ii) the Council President gives a direction to the member under paragraph (2)(b).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

189

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

Executive Director: • Richard Home – an ACCC executive. The NCC entered a memorandum of understanding with the ACCC in 2014 under which the ACCC provides secretariat services to the NCC.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29K (2) [President aware of Councillor conflict of interest] If the Council President becomes aware that a Councillor is taking part, or is to take part, in the Council’s consideration of a matter and that the Councillor has such an interest relating to the matter: (a) the Council President must cause the Councillor’s interest to be disclosed to the persons concerned in the matter; or (b) if the Council President considers that the Councillor should not take part or continue to take part in the consideration of the matter—the Council President must direct the Councillor accordingly. (3) [President’s interests to be reported to Minister] The Council President must give the Minister written notice of all pecuniary interests that the Council President has or acquires in any business carried on in Australia or in any body corporate carrying on such business. [S 29K insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29L

Council meetings

(1) [Efficient performance of Council functions] The Council President must convene the meetings that the Council President thinks are necessary to perform the Council’s functions efficiently. (2) [Location of meetings] The meetings must be held in places determined by the Council President. (3) [Council President presides] The Council President must preside at any meeting that he or she attends. (4) [Council President absent] If the Council President is absent from a meeting, a Councillor chosen by the Councillors at the meeting must preside. (5) [Presiding Councillor may give procedural directions] The Councillor presiding at a meeting may give directions on the procedure to be followed in relation to the meeting. (6) [Quorum] The quorum for a meeting is 3 Councillors (including the Council President). (7) [Questions decided by voting] At a meeting, a question must be decided by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting. The Councillor presiding has a deliberative vote, and a casting vote if the deliberative votes are equally divided. [S 29L insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29LA

Resolutions without meetings

(1) [Resolution deemed to have passed] If all Councillors (other than those that must not sign a document because of subsection (3)) sign a document containing a statement that they are in favour of a resolution in terms set out in the document, then a resolution in those terms is taken to have been passed at a duly constituted meeting of the Council held on the day the document was signed, or, if the members sign the document on different days, on the last of those days. (2) [Multiples documents constitute single document] For the purposes of subsection (1), 2 or more separate documents containing statements in identical terms each of which is signed by one or more Councillors are together taken to constitute one document containing a statement in those terms signed by those Councillors on the respective days on which they signed the separate documents.

190

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIA – The National Competition Council s 29O (3) [Councillor must not sign document if pecuniary conflict of interest] A Councillor must not sign a document containing a statement in favour of a resolution if the resolution concerns a matter in which the Councillor has any pecuniary interest, being an interest that could conflict with the proper performance of the Councillor’s functions in relation to any matter. [S 29LA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 1]

29M

Staff to help Council

(1) [Public Service Act] The staff needed to help the Council are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999. [Subs (1) am Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 948]

(2) [Council President and staff constitute Statutory Agency] For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999: (a) the Council President and the APS employees assisting the Council President together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Council President is the Head of that Statutory Agency. [Subs (2) subst Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 949] [S 29M am Act 146 of 1999; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29N

Consultants

(1) [Services to the Council] On behalf of the Commonwealth, the Council may engage persons to give advice to, and perform services for, the Council. (2) [Consultant terms and conditions] The terms and conditions of engagement are as determined by the Council. [S 29N insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

29O

Annual report

(1) [Councillors must give a report to Minister] Within 60 days after the end of each financial year, the Councillors must give a report on the Council’s operations during that year to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament. (2) [Annual report details] The report must also include details of the following: (a) the time taken by the Council to make a recommendation on any application under section 44F, 44M or 44NA (about access regime applications under Part IIIA); (b) any court or Tribunal decision interpreting: (i) paragraph (f) of the definition of service in section 44B (which is an exclusion to do with production processes); or (ii) any of the matters mentioned in subsection 44H(4) (about matters relevant to declaring services under Part IIIA); (c) any matter the Council considers has impeded the operation of Part IIIA from delivering efficient access outcomes; (d) any evidence of the benefits arising from determinations of the Commission under section 44V (about arbitration determinations under Part IIIA); (e) any evidence of the costs of, or the disincentives for, investment in the infrastructure by which declared services (within the meaning of Part IIIA) are provided;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

191

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 29O (f)

any implications for the operation of Part IIIA in the future.

[Subs (2) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3] [S 29O am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 55]

192

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

PART III – THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL [Pt III heading subst Act 88 of 1995, s 56 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 15 describes the design of the seal of the Australian Competition Tribunal; • reg 16 details the business hours of the Registrar of the Tribunal; • reg 17 provides that an application to the Tribunal and any other document filed with the Registrar shall be intituled in accordance with Sch 1 Form H; • reg 18 provides for filing or lodging of documents with the Registrar; • reg 19 requires the Registrar to allot a file number to each proceeding before the Tribunal; • reg 21 prevents a person from taking part in proceedings before the Tribunal unless they have filed a notice of address for service; • regs 22 and 22A give the Tribunal power to issue directions and permit persons to give written evidence in proceedings; and • reg 23 requires the Registrar to sign and date Tribunal orders and determinations.]

29P

Definition

In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears: proceedings includes: (a) applications made to the Tribunal under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part VII; and (b) applications made to the Tribunal under section 111 (about review of the Commission’s decisions on merger clearances). [S 29P insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

Constitution of Tribunal

(1) [Trade Practices Tribunal becomes Australian Competition Tribunal] The Trade Practices Tribunal that existed immediately before this subsection commenced continues to exist as the Australian Competition Tribunal. [Subs (1) subst Act 88 of 1995, s 57]

(2) [President and Deputy Presidents] The Tribunal so continued in existence shall consist of a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed in accordance with this section. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 57]

(3) [Governor-General appoints members] A member of the Tribunal shall be appointed by the Governor-General. [S 30 am Act 88 of 1995]

SECTION 30 COMMENTARY Background ...................................................................................................................................... [CCA.30.20] Outline .............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.30.40] Current details: members of Tribunal .............................................................................................. [CCA.30.60]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

193

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

30

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 30 [CCA.30.20]

[CCA.30.20] Background

The Australian Competition Tribunal has its origins in the Trade Practices Act 1965. Under that Act the Tribunal was charged with the responsibility of determining whether agreements were examinable and if so then whether, according to enumerated criteria, they were contrary to public policy. Examinable agreements which were found to be contrary to public policy were declared unenforceable. It was formerly called the Trade Practices Tribunal. In R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 8; (1970) 123 CLR 361; 44 ALJR 126; [1970] ALR 449, the High Court was called on to determine whether the functions of the Tribunal involved an exercise of judicial power. If the functions of the Tribunal did involve the exercise of judicial power then that exercise would have been invalid because the Tribunal was not a judicial body constituted in accordance with s 72 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Tribunal’s adjudicative function did not involve an exercise of judicial power. [CCA.30.40]

Outline

This Part deals with the establishment and jurisdiction of the Australian Competition Tribunal. The Tribunal is an independent statutory tribunal whose primary role is to reconsider certain matters on which the ACCC has made a decision. It only does so if a person who is not happy with the decision the ACCC made requests the Tribunal to do so. Decisions of the ACCC which may be referred to the Tribunal for reconsideration are: • decisions on whether or not to grant immunity (authorisation); • decisions to take away immunity (revocation of authorisations or notifications); and • arbitration decisions in cases involving access to essential facilities. In addition, the Tribunal has power to reconsider decisions by Ministers on whether or not a particular service should be opened up to access by third parties: see Pt IIIA. The Tribunal considers cases in much the same way as a court, with formal hearings, evidence and submissions on the facts and the relevant law. Three members constitute the Tribunal when hearing a case and the chairman is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The Tribunal publishes its reasons for decision in a similar manner to a court. [CCA.30.60]

Current details: members of Tribunal

The members of the Tribunal are: President: The Hon Justice John Middleton Deputy presidents: The Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood The Hon Justice Lindsay Foster The Hon Justice David Yates The Hon Justice Alan Robertson The Hon Justice Kathleen Farrell Members: The members of the Tribunal are: • Dr Darryn Abraham, a director of the economics consulting firm Acacia CRE Ltd. He has been a consultant with Access Economics, a Lecturer at the Australian National University and a Senior Research Officer at the Commonwealth Treasury.

194

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal [CCA.31.20]

s 31A

• Professor Kevin Davis, research director at the Australian Centre for Financial Studies and a professor of finance at the University of Melbourne. • Mr Robin Davey, the Regulator-General of Victoria between 1994 and 1997. He had been the Chairperson of the Australian Telecommunications Authority and held a number of positions in the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department as well as senior appointments with the former Trade Practices Commission. • Mr Grant Latta AM, a company director and was formerly a senior executive with Repco Corporation and the Pacific Dunlop Group. • Professor David Round, the Director of the Centre for Applied Economics of the University of South Australia. He is also a part-time member of the Australian Communications Authority. Until his appointment to the Tribunal, Professor Round had been an Associate Member of the ACCC. • Mr Rod Shogren. Mr Shogren is a former member of the ACCC and before his apppintment to the ACCC held senior positions in the Australian Treasury. • Mr Ray Steinwall, an experienced competition and regulatory lawyer who was previously General Counsel to the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. 31

Qualifications of members of Tribunal

(1) [Presidential members] A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member of the Tribunal unless he or she is a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of an external Territory. [Subs (1) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 21]

(2) [Experience required for members] A person shall not be appointed as a member of the Tribunal other than a presidential member unless he or she appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his or her knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law or public administration. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; Act 81 of 1977, s 21] [S 31 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977]

SECTION 31 COMMENTARY Qualification of members

The Tribunal has expressed the sensible view that, as it is a tribunal and not a court, and its members are appointed by virtue of their knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law or public administration, it has no need to go to external material to inform itself of, for example, principles of industrial organisation, even though those principles may go to the very heart of an issue before it: Re Chime Communications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 234 FLR 210; [2009] ACompT 2. 31A

Appointment of Judge as presidential member of Tribunal not to affect tenure etc

The appointment of a Judge of a Federal Court as a presidential member of the Tribunal, or service by a Judge of a Federal Court as a presidential member of the Tribunal, whether the appointment was or is made or the service occurred or occurs before or after the commencement of this section, does not affect, and shall be deemed never to have affected, his or her tenure of office as a Judge of a Federal Court or his or her rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of his or her office as a Judge of a Federal Court and, for all purposes, his or her service, whether

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

195

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[CCA.31.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 31A before or after the commencement of this section, as a presidential member of the Tribunal shall be taken to have been, or to be, service as the holder of his or her office as a Judge of a Federal Court. [S 31A am Act 88 of 1995, s 31 and Sch 3; Act 88 of 1995, s 91; insrt Act 111 of 1977, s 18]

32

Terms and conditions of appointment

Subject to this Part, a member of the Tribunal holds office for such period, not exceeding 7 years, as is specified in the instrument of his or her appointment and on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines, but is eligible for re-appointment. [S 32 am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

33

Remuneration and allowances of members of Tribunal (1) [Repealed]

[Subs (1) rep Act 73 of 1984, s 22]

(2) [Repealed] [Subs (2) rep Act 73 of 1984, s 22]

(3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 73 of 1984, s 22]

(4) [Member remuneration determined by Remuneration Tribunal] A member of the Tribunal other than a presidential member shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (5) [Members’ prescribed allowances] A member of the Tribunal other than a presidential member shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (6) [Remuneration Tribunal Act] Subsections (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. [Subs (6) am Act 43 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 4 item 147] [S 33 am Act 43 of 1996; Act 88 of 1995, s 31 and Sch 3; Act 73 of 1984; subst Act 111 of 1977, s 19; am Act 81 of 1977; subst Act 88 of 1976, s 6]

34

Acting appointments

(1) [Absence of Tribunal President or vacancy] Where: (a) the President is, or is expected to be, absent from duty; or (b) there is, or is expected to be, a vacancy in the office of President; the Minister may appoint a Deputy President or an acting Deputy President to act as President during the absence, or while there is a vacancy in the office of President, as the case may be. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (1) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 416, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; Act 106 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2; subst Act 80 of 1982, s 279] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(2) [Absence of presidential member] Where a presidential member (including the President) of the Tribunal is, or is expected to be, absent from duty, the Governor-General may appoint a person qualified to be appointed as a presidential member to act as a Deputy President during the absence from duty of the member. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (2) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 416, with effect from 27 Dec 2011]

196

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal s 35 [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(3) [Absence other than a presidential member] Where a member of the Tribunal other than a presidential member is, or is expected to be, absent from duty, the Governor-General may appoint a person qualified to be appointed as a member of the Tribunal other than a presidential member to act as such a member during the absence from duty of the member. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (3) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 416, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(4) [Continuation of acting duties] Where a person has been appointed under subsection (2) or (3), the Governor-General may, by reason of pending proceedings or other special circumstances, direct, before the absent member of the Tribunal resumes duty, that the person so appointed shall continue to act under the appointment after the resumption of duty by the absent member until the Governor-General terminates the appointment, but a person shall not continue to act as a member of the Tribunal by virtue of this subsection for more than 12 months after the resumption of duty by the absent member. (5) [Where absent member ceases to hold office] Where a person has been appointed under this section to act as a member of the Tribunal during the absence from duty of a member of the Tribunal, and that member ceases to hold office without having resumed duty, the period of appointment of the person so appointed shall be deemed to continue until it is terminated by the Governor-General, or until the expiration of 12 months from the date on which the absent member ceases to hold office, whichever first happens. [S 34 am Act 46 of 2011; Act 106 of 1998; Act 80 of 1982]

35

Suspension and removal of members of Tribunal

[Subs (2) am Act 81 of 1977, s 23]

(3) [Parliament may revoke suspension] Where such a statement has been laid before a House of the Parliament, that House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the statement has been laid before it, by resolution, declare that the member of the Tribunal should be restored to office and, if each House so passes a resolution, the Governor-General shall terminate the suspension. (4) [Removal from office if no resolution passed] If, at the expiration of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after the day on which the statement has been laid before that House, that House has not passed such a resolution, the Governor-General may remove the member of the Tribunal from office. (5) [Bankruptcy results in removal from office] If a member of the Tribunal becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit, the Governor-General shall remove him or her from office. [Subs (5) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

197

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(1) [Misbehaviour or incapacity] The Governor-General may suspend a member of the Tribunal from office on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. (2) [Grounds of suspension to be laid before Parliament] The Minister shall cause a statement of the ground of the suspension to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of the House after the suspension.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 35

[CCA.37.20]

(6) [Removal to occur only under this section] A member of the Tribunal shall not be removed from office except as provided by this section. (7) [Presidential member ceases office if no longer a Judge] A presidential member of the Tribunal ceases to hold office if he or she no longer holds office as a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of an external Territory. [Subs (7) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91; Act 61 of 1981, s 115 and Sch 1] [S 35 am Act 88 of 1995; Act 61 of 1981; Act 81 of 1977]

36

Resignation

A member of the Tribunal may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Governor-General. [S 36 am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

37

Constitution of Tribunal for particular matters

The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of hearing and determining proceedings, be constituted by a Division of the Tribunal consisting of a presidential member of the Tribunal and two members of the Tribunal who are not presidential members.

SECTION 37 COMMENTARY Outline .............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.37.20] Disqualification ................................................................................................................................. [CCA.37.40]

[CCA.37.20]

Outline

The Tribunal consists of a number of presidential and other members who may be appointed to serve on a division for the purposes of hearing and determining a particular case. Section 37 requires the Tribunal to be constituted by a presidential member and two other members for the purpose of hearing and determining cases, but that does not mean that every procedural matter brought before the Tribunal has to be heard by the three members: Re Seven Network Ltd [2004] ACompT 5; (2004) 182 FLR 169; [2004] ATPR 41-986. [CCA.37.40]

Disqualification

Section 37 does not contemplate a situation where one member is asked to disqualify himself or herself from sitting. Where such an application is made it is for the challenged member alone to make the decision: Re Seven Network Ltd [2004] ACompT 5; (2004) 182 FLR 169; [2004] ATPR 41-986. See also Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337; 63 ALD 577; 75 ALJR 277; 176 ALR 644; Quigley v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2003] WASCA 228; Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740; Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539. The test to be applied in determining whether or not a member should disqualify himself or herself due to a perception of prejudgment is whether or not a fair minded lay observer, with knowledge of the material objective facts, might reasonably think that the Tribunal member might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the case: Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488; 74 ALJR 1380; 174 ALR 655; 26 Fam LR 627; Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1990] HCA 31; (1990) 170 CLR 70; 64 ALJR 412; 93 ALR 435; Re Seven Network Ltd [2004] ACompT 5; (2004) 182 FLR 169; [2004] ATPR 41-986; Re Seven Network Ltd (No 2) [2004] ACompT 6; [2004] ATPR 41-987.

198

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal s 40

38

Validity of determinations

The validity of a determination of the Tribunal shall not be affected or called in question by reason of any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Tribunal. 39

President may give directions

(1) [Arrangement of business and constitution of Divisions] The President may give directions as to the arrangement of the business of the Tribunal and the constitution of Divisions of the Tribunal. [Subs (1) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7]

(2) [Directions to Deputy Presidents] The President may give directions to the Deputy Presidents in relation to the exercise by the Deputy Presidents of powers with respect to matters of procedure in proceedings before the Tribunal. Note: Subsection 103(2) provides that any presidential member may exercise powers with respect to matters of procedure in proceedings before the Tribunal. [Subs (2) insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8] [S 39 am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7]

40

Disclosure of interests by members of Tribunal

(2) [President aware of member conflict of interest] Where the President becomes aware that a member of the Tribunal is, or is to be, a member of a Division of the Tribunal in any proceedings and that the member has in relation to the proceedings such an interest: (a) if the President considers that the member should not take part, or should not continue to take part, in the proceedings—the President shall give a direction to the member accordingly; or (b) in any other case—the President shall cause the interest of the member to be disclosed to the persons concerned in the proceedings. (3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 123 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2] [S 40 am Act 123 of 2000; subst Act 17 of 1986, s 14]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

199

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(1) [Conflict of interest] Where a member of the Tribunal is, or is to be, a member of a Division of the Tribunal in any proceedings and the member has or acquires any pecuniary interest that could conflict with the proper performance of his or her functions in relation to the proceedings: (a) the member shall disclose the interest to the President; and (b) the member shall not take part, or continue to take part, in the proceedings if: (i) the President gives a direction under paragraph (2)(a) in relation to the proceedings; or (ii) all of the persons concerned in the proceedings do not consent to the member taking part in the proceedings.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 41 41

[CCA.42.20] Presidential member to preside

The presidential member who is a member of a Division shall preside at proceedings of that Division. 42

Decision of questions

(1) [Questions of law decided by presidential member] A question of law arising in a matter before a Division of the Tribunal (including the question whether a particular question is one of law) shall be determined in accordance with the opinion of the presidential member presiding. (2) [Other questions decided by majority of members] Subject to subsection (1), a question arising in proceedings before a Division of the Tribunal shall be determined in accordance with the opinion of a majority of the members constituting the Division.

SECTION 42 COMMENTARY [CCA.42.20]

Outline

As the Tribunal sits in panels consisting of a presidential member and two other members, decisions of the Tribunal on matters other than questions of law are determined by majority. In practice, decisions have always been unanimous. Questions of law are determined by the presidential member alone. The effect of Pt IIIA of the Act is a matter of law. It is not a matter of fact to be resolved by a preference for one body of expert evidence over another. The evidence of economists might assist with an understanding of the economic concepts used in the statute, and by alerting the Tribunal to the absurd or unreasonable uniqueness which might flow from one or other interpretation of the statute, but the ultimate question of interpretation is a matter for the presidential member to determine: Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58. In Re Seven Network Ltd [2004] ACompT 5; (2004) 182 FLR 169; [2004] ATPR 41-986, a challenge was made to one of the members sitting on the panel. The President decided that the following were questions of law: • the composition of the panel to hear the objection; • the decision concerning who should decide whether or not the challenged member should continue to sit on the panel; and • the principles for determining whether a member should disqualify himself or herself. 43

Member of Tribunal ceasing to be available

(1) [Member no longer available for purposes of proceedings] This section applies where the hearing of any proceedings has been commenced or completed by the Tribunal but, before the matter to which the proceedings relate has been determined, one of the members constituting the Tribunal for the purposes of the proceedings has ceased to be a member of the Tribunal or has ceased to be available for the purposes of the proceedings. (2) [Substitution of member] Where the President is satisfied that this section applies in relation to proceedings, the President may direct that a specified member of the Tribunal shall take the place of the member referred to in subsection (1) for the purposes of the proceedings.

200

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part III – The Australian Competition Tribunal s 44 (3) [Completion of proceedings without member] Where this section applies in relation to proceedings that were being dealt with before the Tribunal, the President may, instead of giving a direction under subsection (2), direct that the hearing and determination, or the determination, of the proceedings be completed by the Tribunal constituted by the members other than the member referred to in subsection (1). (4) [Addition of a third member] Where the President has given a direction under subsection (3), he or she may, at any time before the determination of the proceedings, direct that a third member be added to the Tribunal as constituted in accordance with subsection (3). [Subs (4) am Act 88 of 1995, s 91]

(5) [Tribunal may have regard to records] The Tribunal as constituted in accordance with any of the provisions of this section for the purposes of any proceedings may have regard to any record of the proceedings before the Tribunal as previously constituted. [S 43 am Act 88 of 1995]

43A

Counsel assisting Tribunal

(1) [President may appoint legal practitioner] The President may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, appoint a legal practitioner to assist the Tribunal as counsel, either generally or in relation to a particular matter or matters. (2) [Definition: legal practitioner] In this section: legal practitioner means a legal practitioner (however described) of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. [S 43A insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 8]

43B

Consultants

The Registrar may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage persons as consultants to, or to perform services for, the Tribunal. [S 43B insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 8]

Staff of Tribunal

(1) [Registrar and Deputy Registrars] There shall be a Registrar of the Tribunal and such Deputy Registrars of the Tribunal as are appointed in accordance with this section. (2) [Duties and functions] The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars shall be appointed by the Minister and shall have such duties and functions as are provided by this Act and the regulations and such other duties and functions as the President directs. [Subs (2) am Act 81 of 1977, s 24]

(3) [Engagement under Public Service Act] The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars, and the staff necessary to assist them, shall be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999. [Subs (3) am Act 146 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 1 item 950; Act 88 of 1995, s 58] [S 44 am Act 146 of 1999; Act 88 of 1995; Act 81 of 1977]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

201

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

44

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44A

[CCA.44.20]

SECTION 44 COMMENTARY [CCA.44.20]

Tribunal staff

The Tribunal has no staff of its own. Registry services and administrative support for the Tribunal are provided by the staff of the Federal Court of Australia. Funds appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the Tribunal are managed by the Federal Court. 44A

Acting appointments

The Minister may appoint a person who is engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 to act as the Registrar or as a Deputy Registrar during any period, or during all periods, when: (a) the Registrar or that Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties and functions of his or her office; or (b) there is a vacancy in the office of Registrar or in that office of Deputy Registrar, as the case may be. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [S 44A am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 417–419, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; Act 146 of 1999; Act 88 of 1995; insrt Act 206 of 1978, s 7] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

202

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

PART IIIAA – THE AUSTRALIAN ENERGY REGULATOR (AER) [Pt IIIAA insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

PART IIIAA COMMENTARY [CCA.PTIIIAA.20]

Background

In December 1998 legislation in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the ACT came into effect to create a national electricity market – a regime of open access to the transmission and distribution networks in those States and Territories. Tasmania subsequently joined. The legislation National Electricity Code, which sets out the objectives of the market and the rights and responsibilities of market participants, was registered as an industry access code under s 44ZZAA of the then TPA. Sponsoring jurisdictions established a company limited by guarantee, the National Electricity Code Administrator, to administer the Code and propose changes to the Code to the ACCC for approval under Pt IIIA of the CCA. Following a review of the operation of the Code it was decided that responsibility for administering the Code would be taken over by a new Australian Energy Regulator. Part IIIAA establishes that body. The relevant legislation is at http://www.aemc.gov.au/legislation.php.

DIVISION 1 – PRELIMINARY 44AB

Definitions

Australian Energy Market Agreement means the agreement, as amended from time to time: (a) that relates to energy; and (b) that is between the Commonwealth, all of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; and (c) that is first made in 2004; and (d) that agrees to the establishment of the AER and the AEMC. Commonwealth AER member means the member referred to in section 44AM. full-time AER member means an AER member appointed on a full-time basis. part-time AER member means an AER member appointed on a part-time basis. South Australian Electricity Legislation [Repealed] [Def rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 67; am Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 2 items 12 and 13]

State/Territory energy law [Repealed] [Def rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 68]

uniform energy law [Repealed] [Def rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 69] [S 44AB am Act 45 of 2007; Act 60 of 2006; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

203

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44A& 44AC

[CCA.PTIIIAA.20] This Part binds the Crown

This Part binds the Crown in each of its capacities. [S 44AC insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AD

Extra-territorial operation

It is the intention of the Parliament that the operation of this Part should, as far as possible, include operation in relation to the following: (a) things situated in or outside Australia; (b) acts, transactions and matters done, entered into or occurring in or outside Australia; (c) things, acts, transactions and matters (wherever situated, done, entered into or occurring) that would, apart from this Act, be governed or otherwise affected by the law of a State, a Territory or a foreign country. [S 44AD insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

DIVISION 2 – ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AER 44AE

Establishment of the AER

(1) [Australian Energy Regulator] The Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) is established by this section. (2) [Attributes of AER] The AER: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; and (b) must have a common seal; and (c) may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property; and (d) may sue and be sued in its corporate name. (3) [Where AER deemed as non-corporate] However, the AER is taken, for the purposes of the finance law (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013): (a) not to be a corporate Commonwealth entity; and (b) to be a part of the Commonwealth, and a part of the Commission; and (c) not to be a body corporate. [Subs (3) insrt Act 62 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 5 item 112, with effect from 1 Jul 2014] [S 44AE am Act 62 of 2014; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AF

AER to hold money and property on behalf of the Commonwealth

The AER holds any money or property for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. [S 44AF insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AG

Constitution of the AER

The AER consists of: (a) a Commonwealth AER member, appointed in accordance with section 44AM; and (b) 2 State/Territory AER members, appointed in accordance with section 44AP. [S 44AG insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

204

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 3 – Functions and powers of the AER

s 44AI

DIVISION 3 – FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE AER 44AH

Commonwealth functions

The AER has any functions: (a) conferred under a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) prescribed by regulations made under this Act. Note: The AER may have functions under the Australian Energy Market Act 2004. [S 44AH am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 70; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 7AA prescribes the functions of the Australian Energy Regulator for s 44AH(b).]

44AI

Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on AER

General rule (1) [State/Territory energy law or a local energy instrument may confer functions on AER] A State/Territory energy law or a local energy instrument may confer functions or powers, or impose duties, on the AER for the purposes of that law or instrument. Note: Section 44AK sets out when such a law or instrument imposes a duty on the AER. [Subs (1) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 6–8, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

(2) [Limits of conferral] Subsection (1) does not authorise the conferral of a function or power, or the imposition of a duty, by a State/Territory energy law or local energy instrument to the extent to which: (a) the conferral or imposition, or the authorisation, would contravene any constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the AER; or (b) the authorisation would otherwise exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth. [Subs (2) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 9, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

(3) [AER functions must accord with certain agreements] The AER cannot perform a duty or function, or exercise a power, under a State/Territory energy law or local energy instrument unless the conferral of the function or power, or the imposition of the duty, is in accordance with the Australian Energy Market Agreement, or any other relevant agreement between the Commonwealth and the State or Territory concerned. (4) A local energy instrument may confer functions or powers, or impose duties, on the AER only if the instrument is designated for the purposes of this subsection under the Australian Energy Market Agreement, or any other relevant agreement between the Commonwealth and the State or Territory that made the instrument. [Subs (4) subst Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 12, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 11, with effect from 1 Jul 2012] [Editor’s Note: Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 13 provides that despite the repeal of s 44AI(4) by Sch 2 item 12, regulations in force for the purposes of s 44AI(4) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 immediately before the commencement of this item continue in effect on and after that commencement, and may be repealed, as if the repeal of s 44A1(4) had not happened. Sch 2 item 13 commenced on 1 Jul 2012.]

(5) [Where s 44AI(4) applies to a State/Territory energy law] To avoid doubt, if a State/Territory energy law is also a local energy instrument, subsection (4) applies to the law. [Subs (5) insrt Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 11, with effect from 1 Jul 2012] [S 44AI am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 6, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

205

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[Subs (3) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 10, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44A44AJ

How duty is imposed

Application (1) This section applies if a State/Territory energy law or local energy instrument purports to impose a duty on the AER. Note 1: Section 44AK sets out when such a law or instrument imposes a duty on the AER. Note 2: Section 320 of the South Australian Energy Retail Legislation, as it applies as a law of a State or Territory, deals with the case where a duty purportedly imposed on a Commonwealth body under that applied law cannot be imposed by the State or Territory or the Commonwealth due to constitutional doctrines restricting such duties. [Subs (1) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 14–17, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

State or Territory legislative power suffıcient to support duty (2) The duty is taken not to be imposed by this Part (or any other law of the Commonwealth) to the extent to which: (a) imposing the duty is within the legislative powers of the State or Territory concerned; and (b) imposing the duty by the law or instrument of the State or Territory is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the AER. Note: If this subsection applies, the duty will be taken to be imposed by force of the law or instrument of the State or Territory (the Commonwealth having consented under section 44AI to the imposition of the duty by that law or instrument). [Subs (2) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 18 and 19, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

Commonwealth legislative power suffıcient to support duty but State or Territory legislative powers are not (3) If, to ensure the validity of the purported imposition of the duty, it is necessary that the duty be imposed by a law of the Commonwealth (rather than by the law or instrument of the State or Territory), the duty is taken to be imposed by this Part to the extent necessary to ensure that validity. [Subs (3) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 20, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

(4) [Parliament to rely on constitutional powers] If, because of subsection (3), this Part is taken to impose the duty, it is the intention of the Parliament to rely on all powers available to it under the Constitution to support the imposition of the duty by this Part. (5) [Extent of imposition of duty] The duty is taken to be imposed by this Part in accordance with subsection (3) only to the extent to which imposing the duty: (a) is within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth; and (b) is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the AER. (6) [Section 44AI not limited] Subsections (1) to (5) do not limit section 44AI. [S 44AJ am Act 119 of 2011; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AK

When a State/Territory energy law etc imposes a duty

For the purposes of sections 44AI and 44AJ, a State/Territory energy law or local energy instrument imposes a duty on the AER if: (a) the law or instrument confers a function or power on the AER; and [Para (a) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 22, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

206

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44AM.20] (b)

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER

s 44AM

the circumstances in which the function or power is conferred give rise to an obligation on the AER to perform the function or to exercise the power.

[S 44AK am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 21, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AL

Powers of the AER

The AER has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions. Note: State and Territory laws or instruments may also confer powers on the AER in respect of its functions under those laws or instruments: see section 44AI. [S 44AL am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 23, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

DIVISION 4 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE AER SUBDIVISION A – APPOINTMENT ETC. OF MEMBERS 44AM

Appointment of Commonwealth AER member

(1) [Governor-General appoints Commonwealth AER members] A Commonwealth AER member is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument. (2) [Duration of office] The Commonwealth AER member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years. (3) [Eligibility for appointment] A person is not eligible for appointment as the Commonwealth AER member unless the person is a member of the Commission. If the person ceases to be a member of the Commission, then the person also ceases to be an AER member. (4) [Eligibility for appointment] A person is not eligible for appointment as the Commonwealth AER member unless the person has been chosen for appointment in accordance with the Australian Energy Market Agreement. [S 44AM insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

[CCA.44AM.20]

Current details: AER members

Chair • Paula Conboy – Ms Conboy has been a member of the Ontario Energy Board and was vice-president of a Canadian power company. She has had 20 years experience in regulation in Australia and Canada. Members • Jim Cox PSM – Mr Cox was appointed as an acting State/Territory board member. He was previously the Chief Executive Officer and Full Time Member of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART). Mr Cox has been appointed until 25 June 2017. • Cristina Cifuentes – Ms Cifuentes is an ACCC Associate Commissioner. Ms Cifuentes is a lawyer and company director who previously served on the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Ms Cifuentes has been appointed until October 2015.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

207

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

SECTION 44AM COMMENTARY

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AN

44AN

Membership of AER and Commission

Member taken to be full-time member of both AER and Commission (1) For the purposes of this Part, the Commonwealth AER member is taken to be a full-time member of the AER. (2) [Commonwealth AER member remains Commission member] However, the Commonwealth AER member remains a full-time member of the Commission. Paid employment (3) Paragraph 13(2)(c) does not apply to a member of the Commission in respect of any paid employment of that member as an AER member. (4) [Sections 44AX and 44AAB do not apply] Sections 44AX and 44AAB do not apply to an AER member in respect of the paid employment of that member as a member of the Commission. [S 44AN insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AO

Acting appointment of Commonwealth AER member

(1) [Chairperson may appoint acting member] The Chairperson may appoint a member of the Commission to act as the Commonwealth AER member: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Commonwealth AER member, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Commonwealth AER member is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (1) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 420, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(2) [Acting Commonwealth AER member must remain Commission member] If a person acting as the Commonwealth AER member ceases to be a member of the Commission, then the appointment to act as the Commonwealth AER member also ceases. (3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 421, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.] [S 44AO am Act 46 of 2011; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AP

Appointment of State/Territory AER members

(1) [Governor-General appoints State/Territory AER members] A State/Territory AER member is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument, on either a full-time or part-time basis. Note: A State/Territory AER member is also taken to be an associate member of the Commission: see section 8AB. (2) [Duration of office] A State/Territory AER member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

208

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER

s 44AR

(3) [State/Territory AER member eligibility] A person is not eligible for appointment as a State/Territory AER member unless the person, being a person who has knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law, consumer protection or public administration, has been nominated for appointment in accordance with the Australian Energy Market Agreement. [S 44AP insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AQ

Acting appointment of State/Territory AER member

(1) [Absence or vacancy of office] The Minister may appoint a person to act as a State/Territory AER member: (a) during a vacancy in the office of State/Territory AER member, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the State/Territory AER member is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (1) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 422, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(2) [State/Territory acting AER member eligibility] A person is not eligible for appointment to act as a State/Territory AER member unless the person, being a person who has knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law, consumer protection or public administration, has been nominated for appointment in accordance with the Australian Energy Market Agreement. [S 44AQ am Act 46 of 2011; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AR

AER Chair

(2) [AER Chair eligibility] A member is not eligible for appointment as AER Chair unless the person has been nominated for appointment as the Chair in accordance with the Australian Energy Market Agreement. (3) [Duration of office] The AER Chair holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years. (4) [AER Chair must remain member] If the AER Chair ceases to be an AER member, then he or she also ceases to be the AER Chair. Note: A person may cease to be the AER Chair without ceasing to be an AER member. [S 44AR insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

209

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(1) [Governor-General appoints AER Chair] One of the AER members is to be appointed by the Governor-General as the AER Chair, by written instrument. The appointment as AER Chair may be made at the same time as the appointment as AER member, or at a later time.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AS 44AS

Acting AER Chair

(1) [Absence or vacancy of AER Chair] The Minister may appoint an AER member to act as the AER Chair: (a) during a vacancy in the office of the AER Chair, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the AER Chair is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. [Subs (1) am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 423, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

(2) [Acting AER Chair must remain member] If a person acting as the AER Chair ceases to be an AER member, then the appointment to act as the AER Chair also ceases. (3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 424, with effect from 27 Dec 2011] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.] [S 44AS am Act 46 of 2011; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AT

Remuneration of AER members

(1) [Remuneration prescribed until determined by Tribunal] An AER member (other than the Commonwealth AER member) is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (2) [Prescribed allowances] An AER member (other than the Commonwealth AER member) is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed. (3) [Remuneration Tribunal Act] Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) [Commonwealth AER member paid as Commission member] The Commonwealth AER member is not entitled to be paid remuneration or allowances. Note: The Commonwealth AER member is paid as a member of the Commission. [S 44AT insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AU

Additional remuneration of AER Chair

(1) [Additional remuneration determined by Tribunal] The AER Chair (whether or not the Commonwealth AER member) is to be paid additional remuneration (if any) determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) [Additional allowances] The AER Chair (whether or not the Commonwealth AER member) is to be paid additional allowances (if any) that are prescribed. (3) [Remuneration Tribunal Act] This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 other than subsection 7(11) of that Act. [S 44AU insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

210

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER 44AV

s 44AZ

Leave of absence

(1) [Recreation leave] A full-time AER member has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) [Leave of absence] The Minister may grant a full-time AER member leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines. (3) [Leave of absence: part-time AER member] The AER Chair may grant leave of absence to any part-time AER member on the terms and conditions that the AER Chair determines. [S 44AV insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AW

Other terms and conditions

An AER member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Governor-General. [S 44AW insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AX

Outside employment

(1) [Minister’s consent for other paid employment] A full-time AER member must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of the member’s office without the Minister’s consent. (2) [Part-time AER member not to engage in conflicting outside employment] A part-time AER member must not engage in any paid employment that conflicts or could conflict with the proper performance of the member’s duties. [S 44AX insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AY

Disclosure of interests

(2) [Record of disclosure] The disclosure, and any decision made by the AER in relation to the disclosure, must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. [S 44AY insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AZ

Resignation

(1) [Written resignation given to Governor-General] An AER member may resign his or her appointment by giving the Governor-General a written resignation. (2) [Resignation of AER Chair] The AER Chair may resign his or her appointment as AER Chair by giving the Governor-General a written resignation. The resignation does not affect the person’s appointment as an AER member. [S 44AZ insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

211

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

(1) [Conflict of interest] If an AER member has any direct or indirect interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the AER, being an interest that could conflict with the proper performance of the member’s functions in relation to a matter arising at a meeting of the AER, then the member must as soon as practicable disclose that interest at a meeting of the AER.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AAB 44AAB

[CCA.44AAC.20] Termination of appointment

All AER members (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of an AER member: (a) for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) if the member: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or (c) if the member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 44AY. Additional grounds: full-time AER members (2) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a full-time AER member if: (a) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (b) the member engages, except with the Minister’s consent, in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office. Additional grounds: part-time AER members (3) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a part-time AER member if: (a) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the AER; or (b) the member engages in paid employment that conflicts or could conflict with the proper performance of the duties of his or her office. [S 44AAB insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

SUBDIVISION B – STAFF ETC. TO ASSIST THE AER 44AAC

Staff etc to assist the AER

The Chairperson must make available: (a) persons engaged under section 27; and (b) consultants engaged under section 27A; to assist the AER to perform its functions. [S 44AAC insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

SECTION 44AAC COMMENTARY The AER ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44AAC.20] Current details: AER senior executives .................................................................................... [CCA.44AAC.40] Current details: AER website .................................................................................................... [CCA.44AAC.60]

[CCA.44AAC.20]

The AER

The Australian Energy Regulator is, as its name implies, the independent statutory regulator of the national energy market. Its statutory remit is to administer the so called National Electricity Law and Rules and the National Gas Law and Rules. These laws apply to electricity generation and wholesale distribution and to gas transmission in all mainland States and Territories other than Western Australia.

212

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44AAC.60]

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER

[CCA.44AAC.40]

Current details: AER senior executives

s 44AAE

Chief Executive Officer – Michelle Groves +61 3 9290 1422 Network Investment and Pricing Branch General Manager – Chris Pattas +61 3 9290 1470. Network Opex and Reset Coordination Branch General Manager – Sebastian Roberts +61 3 9290 1895. Network Finance and Reporting Branch General Manager – Warwick Anderson +61 3 9290 1240. Wholesale Markets Branch General Manager – Peter Adams +61 3 9290 1465. Retail Markets Branch General Manager – Sarah Proudfoot +61 3 9290 6965. [CCA.44AAC.60]

Current details: AER website

The AER’s website address is http://www.aer.gov.au.

SUBDIVISION C – MEETINGS OF THE AER ETC. 44AAD Meetings (1) [AER Chair to convene meetings] The AER Chair must convene such meetings of the AER as he or she thinks necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the AER. Note: See also section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about meetings by (2) [Location of meetings] Meetings of the AER must be held at such places as the AER Chair determines. (3) [Quorum] At a meeting of the AER, 2 members constitute a quorum. The quorum must include the AER Chair and must also include the Commonwealth AER member (if the Commonwealth AER member is not also the AER Chair). (4) [Questions determinied by unanimous vote] Questions arising at a meeting must be determined by unanimous vote of the members present and voting. (5) [AER Chair presides at meetings] The AER Chair must preside at all meetings of the AER. (6) [AER Chair may give procedural directions] The AER Chair may give directions regarding the procedure to be followed at or in connection with a meeting. [S 44AAD insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AAE

Resolutions without meetings

(1) [Resolution by document] If all 3 AER members sign a document containing a statement that they are in favour of a resolution in terms set out in the document, then a resolution in those terms is taken to have been passed at a duly constituted meeting of the AER held on the day the document was signed, or, if the members sign the document on different days, on the last of those days. (2) [Separate documents with identical terms represent one document] For the purposes of subsection (1), 2 or more separate documents containing statements in identical terms each of which is signed by one or more members are together taken to constitute one document containing a statement in those terms signed by those members on the respective days on which they signed the separate documents.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

213

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

telephone etc.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AAE (3) [Conflict of interest] A member must not sign a document containing a statement in favour of a resolution if the resolution concerns a matter in which the member has any direct or indirect interest, being an interest that could conflict with the proper performance of the member’s functions in relation to any matter. [S 44AAE insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AAEA

Arbitration

(1) [When ss 44AAD and 44AAE do not apply] Sections 44AAD and 44AAE do not apply to the AER as constituted for an arbitration under: (a) the National Electricity (Commonwealth) Law (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or (b) the National Gas (Commonwealth) Law (as defined by the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or (c) a provision of a State/Territory energy law. (2) [Reference to arbitration] The reference in subsection (1) to an arbitration includes a reference to each of the following: (a) the making, variation or revocation of an access determination (within the meaning of the law concerned); (b) the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, in connection with the making, variation or revocation of an access determination (within the meaning of the law concerned). [S 44AAEA insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 71]

SUBDIVISION D – MISCELLANEOUS 44AAF

Confidentiality

(1) [AER must prevent disclosure] The AER must take all reasonable measures to protect from unauthorised use or disclosure information: (a) given to it in confidence in, or in connection with, the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers; or (b) that is obtained by compulsion in the exercise of its powers. Note: The Privacy Act 1988 also contains provisions relevant to the use and disclosure of information. (2) [Authorised disclosure] For the purposes of subsection (1), the disclosure of information as required or permitted by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, is taken to be authorised use and disclosure of the information. Authorised use (3) Disclosing information to one of the following is authorised use and disclosure of the information: (a) the Commission; (b) the AEMC; (c) Australian Energy Market Operator Limited (ACN 072 010 327); (ca) the Clean Energy Regulator; (cb) the Climate Change Authority; (d) any staff or consultant assisting a body mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (ca) or (cb) in performing its functions or exercising its powers; (e) any other person or body prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph. [Subs (3) am Act 132 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 items 258B and 258C, with effect from 1 Jul 2012; Act 132 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 items 100 and 101, with effect from 2 Apr 2012; Act 17 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

214

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER

s 44AAG

(4) [Use of disclosed information] A person or body to whom information is disclosed under subsection (3) may use the information for any purpose connected with the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the person or body. (5) [Conditions concerning disclosed information] The AER may impose conditions to be complied with in relation to information disclosed under subsection (3). (6) [Authorised disclosure of information] For the purposes of subsection (1), the use or disclosure of information by a person for the purposes of: (a) performing the person’s functions, or exercising the person’s powers, as: (i) an AER member, a person referred to in section 44AAC or a delegate of the AER; or (ii) a person who is authorised to perform or exercise a function or power of, or on behalf of, the AER; or (b) the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, by the person by way of assisting a delegate of the AER; is taken to be authorised use and disclosure of the information. (7) [Regulations may specify authorised disclosures or uses] Regulations made for the purposes of this section may specify uses of information and disclosures of information that are authorised uses and authorised disclosures for the purposes of this section. (8) [No limitations on authorised use or disclosure] Nothing in any of the above subsections limits: (a) anything else in any of those subsections; or (b) what may otherwise constitute, for the purposes of subsection (1), authorised use or disclosure of information. [S 44AAF am Act 132 of 2011; Act 17 of 2009; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 7 prescribes the bodies and persons to whom the Australian Energy Regulator may disclose information for s 44AAF(3)(e), including: • ACT: Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal; • Cth: National Competition Council, Australian Competition Tribunal; • NT: Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory; • Qld: Queensland Competition Authority, Energy and Water Ombudsman; • SA: Essential Services Commission, Energy Industry Ombudsman (SA) Limited; • Tas: Office of the Regulator, Ombudsman; • Vic: Essential Services Commission, Energy and Water Ombudsman (Victoria) Limited; • WA: Economic Regulation Authority; and • Each jurisdiction that has applied the National Energy Retail Law as a law of the jurisdiction: The Minister responsible for the administration of the national energy retail legislation.]

44AAG

Federal Court may make certain orders

(1) [AER may apply to Federal Court for orders] The Federal Court may make an order, on application by the AER on behalf of the Commonwealth, declaring that a person is in breach of: (a) a uniform energy law that is applied as a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) a State/Territory energy law.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

215

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

• NSW: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Energy and Water Ombudsman (NSW) Limited;

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AAG (2) [Purpose of order] If the order declares the person to be in breach of such a law, the order may include one or more of the following: (a) an order that the person pay a civil penalty determined in accordance with the law; (b) an order that the person cease, within a specified period, the act, activity or practice constituting the breach; (c) an order that the person take such action, or adopt such practice, as the Court requires for remedying the breach or preventing a recurrence of the breach; (d) an order that the person implement a specified program for compliance with the law; (e) an order of a kind prescribed by regulations made under this Act. (3) [Injunctions] If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in any conduct in breach of: (a) a uniform energy law that is applied as a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) a State/Territory energy law; the Federal Court may, on application by the AER on behalf of the Commonwealth, grant an injunction: (c) restraining the person from engaging in the conduct; and (d) if, in the court’s opinion, it is desirable to do so—requiring the person to do something. (4) [When power of injunction may be exercised] The power of the Federal Court under subsection (3) to grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of a particular kind may be exercised: (a) if the court is satisfied that the person has engaged in conduct of that kind—whether or not it appears to the court that the person intends to engage again, or to continue to engage, in conduct of that kind; or (b) if it appears to the court that, if an injunction is not granted, it is likely that the person will engage in conduct of that kind—whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind and whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the person engages in conduct of that kind. [S 44AAG insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6AA prescribes orders about energy laws for s 44AAG(2)(e).]

44AAGA Federal Court may order disconnection if an event specified in the National Electricity Rules occurs (1) [Relevant disconnection event] If a relevant disconnection event occurs, the Federal Court may make an order, on application by the AER on behalf of the Commonwealth, directing that a Registered participant’s loads be disconnected. (2) [Definitions] In this section: National Electricity Law means: (a) the National Electricity Law set out in the Schedule to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 of South Australia as in force from time to time; or (b) that Law as it applies as a law of another State; or (c) that Law as it applies as a law of a Territory; or (d) that Law as it applies as a law of the Commonwealth. National Electricity Rules means:

216

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIAA – The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Division 4 – Administrative provisions relating to the AER (a)

(b) (c) (d)

s 44AAJ

the National Electricity Rules, as in force from time to time, made under the National Electricity Law set out in the Schedule to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 of South Australia; or those Rules as they apply as a law of another State; or those Rules as they apply as a law of a Territory; or those Rules as they apply as a law of the Commonwealth.

Registered participant has the same meaning as in the National Electricity Law. relevant disconnection event means an event specified in the National Electricity Rules as being an event for which a Registered participant’s loads may be disconnected, where the event does not constitute a breach of the National Electricity Rules. [S 44AAGA insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 2 item 14]

44AAH

Delegation by the AER

The AER may, by resolution, delegate: (a) all or any of the AER’s functions and powers under this Part or under regulations made under this Act, or under another law of the Commonwealth; or (b) all or any of the AER’s functions and powers under a State/Territory energy law; to an AER member or to an SES employee, or acting SES employee, assisting the AER as mentioned in section 44AAC. Note 1: Section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains the definitions of SES employee and acting SES employee.

Note 2: See also sections 34AA to 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contain extra rules about delegations. [S 44AAH am Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 425, with effect from 27 Dec 2011; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9] [Editor’s Note: Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10 provides the amendments made by Sch 2 do not affect the validity of an appointment that was made under an Act before the commencement of this item and that was in force immediately before that commencement. Sch 3 item 10 commenced on 27 Dec 2011.]

Fees

(1) [AER services may incur a fee] The AER may charge a fee specified in the regulations for services provided by it in performing any of its functions, or exercising any of its powers, under this Part or under regulations made under this Act, or under another law of the Commonwealth or a State/Territory energy law. (2) [Fee not to amount to taxation] The fee must not be such as to amount to taxation. [S 44AAI insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

44AAJ

Annual report

(1) [Minister to receive annual report] The AER must, within 60 days after the end of each year ending on 30 June, give the Minister a report on its operations during that year, for presentation to the Parliament. Note: See also section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about annual reports. (2) [Who is given annual report] The Minister must give a copy of the report to the relevant Minister of each of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. [S 44AAJ insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

217

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

44AAI

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AAK 44AAK

Regulations may deal with transitional matters

(1) [Governor-General may make regulations] The Governor-General may make regulations dealing with matters of a transitional nature relating to the transfer of functions and powers from a body to the AER. (2) [Scope of regulations] Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may deal with: (a) the transfer of any relevant investigations being conducted by the body at the time of the transfer of functions and powers to the AER; or (b) the transfer of any decisions or determinations being made by the body at the time of the transfer of functions and powers to the AER; or (c) the substitution of the AER as a party to any relevant proceedings that are pending in any court or tribunal at the time of the transfer of functions and powers to the AER; or (d) the transfer of any relevant information from the body to the AER. (3) [Definition: matters of a transitional nature] In this section: matters of a transitional nature also includes matters of an application or saving nature. [S 44AAK insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

218

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

PART IIIAB – APPLICATION OF THE FINANCE LAW [Pt IIIAB insrt Act 62 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 6 item 35, with effect from 1 Jul 2014]

44AAL

Application of the finance law

For the purposes of the finance law (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013): (a) the following combination of bodies is a listed entity: (i) the Commission; (ii) the AER; and (b) the listed entity is to be known as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (c) the Chairperson is the accountable authority of the listed entity; and (d) the following persons are officials of the listed entity: (i) the Chairperson; (ii) the other members of the Commission; (iii) the associate members of the Commission; (iv) the AER members; (v) persons engaged under section 27; and (e) the purposes of the listed entity include: (i) the functions conferred on the Commission by this Act; and (ii) the functions of the AER under Division 3 of Part IIIAA.

CCA ss 6A-44AAL

[S 44AAL insrt Act 62 of 2014, s 3 and Sch 6 item 35, with effect from 1 Jul 2014]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

219

PART IIIA – ACCESS TO SERVICES [Pt IIIA insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

PART IIIA COMMENTARY Background ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.PTIIIA.20] The United States approach ...................................................................................................... [CCA.PTIIIA.40] European approach ................................................................................................................... [CCA.PTIIIA.60] Hilmer recommendations ........................................................................................................... [CCA.PTIIIA.80] Competition Principles Agreement ........................................................................................... [CCA.PTIIIA.100]

[CCA.PTIIIA.20]

Background

The origins of an essential facilities doctrine, under which owners of facilities could be required to provide access to those facilities to overcome market foreclosure has its origins in the United States Supreme Court’s decision under the Sherman Act 1890 (US): United States Supreme Court, in US v Terminal Railroad Assn 224 US 383 (1912). In that case the court applied the Sherman Act 1890 equivalent to s 46 to permit courts to order access by competitors to facilities determined to be essential to competition as a response to claims of monopolisation. This decision in US v Terminal Railroad Assn 224 US 383 (1912) was unsatisfactorily ambiguous, but it was nevertheless applied by the US courts to refine and develop the doctrine: see [1.PtIIIA.40].

First, it is not readily accommodated to the terms of s 46 itself, and it is those terms that govern this case. Secondly, … the “essential facility” doctrine evolved as a gloss upon the succinct terms of the Sherman Act. Thirdly, we have some difficulty, at least in cases where a monopoly of electric power, transport, communications or some other “essential service” is not involved, in seeing the limits of the concept of “essential facility” … Fourthly, even if there be such a doctrine, there is a particular difficulty where the aid of the courts is sought to oblige the respondent to accept the applicant as a customer. … For these reasons, whilst we have derived assistance from the United States authorities by way of comparison with and contrast to s 46 of the Act, we do not find in them any compelling guidance as to the construction of that provision. The same is true of the authorities upon s 86 of the Treaty of Rome, to which we were referred … When the case came before the High Court, in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925, the court held that BHP had used its power in a manner prohibited by s 46, without reference to the United States essential facilities doctrine. This led to a growing interest in the essential facilities doctrine in Australia, particularly in the context of access to natural monopolies such as rail lines, telecommunications facilities, electricity and water infrastructure and ultimately to the introduction of this Part in 1995. © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

221

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

In Australia in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1987] FCA 497; (1987) 17 FCR 211; 78 ALR 407; [1988] ATPR 40-841, a market dominance case under s 46 in which the applicant, QWI, sought access to supplies of a product manufactured by BHP, without which it felt unable to effectively compete with BHP in the market for supply of rural fencing products, a Full Federal Court was invited to import United States jurisprudence into the interpretation of s 46 by applying an essential facilities doctrine. The court declined to do so, stating:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 [CCA.PTIIIA.40] [CCA.PTIIIA.40]

The United States approach

The essential facilities doctrine developed in the USA as an extension of the Sherman Act 1890 prohibition on monopolisation. In US v Terminal Railroad Assn 224 US 383 (1912), the United States Supreme Court was faced with a monopolisation claim in which railway companies had combined to acquire rail terminals at St Louis, the only point at which railways carrying freight from east to west could cross the Mississippi River, and had then put in place arrangements that effectively denied their competitors access to the terminals. The Supreme Court decided that this action amounted to collective monopolisation and ordered access to the terminals on competitive terms, thereby laying the foundation for what became known as the essential facilities doctrine. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the basis of an interpretation of s 2 of the Sherman Act 1890, the relevant provision of which simply states: Every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour … Over the years, United States courts developed the essential facilities doctrine. The United States doctrine was explained by the United States Court of Appeals in Caribbean Broadcasting System Ltd v Cable & Wireless plc 148 F 3rd 1080 (1998) at 1088, in the following terms: A monopolist has no general duty to share his essential facility, although there are certain circumstances in which he must do so. … In the special circumstances where there may be such an obligation, the elements of an antitrust claim for denial of access to an essential facility are (1) a monopolist who competes with the plaintiff controls an essential facility, (2) the plaintiff cannot duplicate that facility, (3) the monopolist denied the plaintiff’s use of the facility, and (4) the monopolist could feasibly have granted the plaintiff use of the facility. … As the examples below illustrate, the doctrine has been applied in a wide variety of situations, including in relation to facilities controlled by a single firm. In the USA, the view was that a facility that is controlled by a single firm will be considered “essential” if control of the facility carries with it the power to eliminate competition in the downstream market at least relatively permanently: Alaska Airlines Inc v United Airlines Inc [1991] 2 Trade Cases 69,624; 948 F2d 536 (1991). Whether or not a particular facility is an essential facility in the United States context is therefore a question of fact, to be decided case-by-case. For instance, the doctrine has been applied to electricity distribution infrastructure (Otter Tail Power Co v US 410 US 366 (1973)); gas pipelines (State of Illinois v Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co [1991] 1 Trade Cases 69,455); flour mills (Helix Milling Co v Terminal Flour Mills Co [1975] 2 Trade Cases 60,554), newspaper advertising space (Lorain Journal Co v US 342 US 143 (1951)), ski resorts (Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp v Aspen Skiing Co 472 US 585 (1985)) and sports stadiums (Hecht v Pro-Football Inc [1977] 2 Trade Cases 61,773; Fishman v Wirtz [1986] 2 Trade Cases 67,356). However, in Verizon Communications Inc v Offıces of Curtis V Trinko LLP 540 US 398 (2004), an unsuccessful case concerning access to telecommunications facilities, the US Supreme Court said that it had never recognised an essential facilities doctrine “crafted by some lower courts” and said that it found no need to either recognise or repudiate the doctrine in that case. That case followed significant academic comment in the USA that the essential facilities doctrine should be either abandoned or narrowed to natural monopolies, price-regulating monopoly utilities and publicly owned facilities that provide services at subsidised prices: see Pitofsky R, Patterson D and Hooks J, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law” (2002) 70 Antitrust LJ 443. [CCA.PTIIIA.60]

European approach

The doctrine of access to essential facilities also developed in Europe as a subset of the prohibition on monopolisation.

222

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services [CCA.PTIIIA.100] The doctrine as applied in the European Union is best explained in B & I Line plc v Sealink Harbours Ltd (1992) 5 CMLR 255 as follows: A dominant undertaking which both owns or controls and itself uses an essential facility, ie a facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers, and which refuses its competitors access to that facility or grants access to competitors only on terms less favourable than those which it gives its own services, thereby placing the competitors at a competitive disadvantage, infringes Article 86, if the other conditions of that Article are met. The European courts have been more cautious about the doctrine thant courts in the United States. Earlier cases applied the doctrine, for instance, to port access (Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova SpA v Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5889). More recently, European courts have rejected claims that a railway joint venture’s train paths, locomotives and crews were essential services which had to be made available to third parties: European Night Services Ltd v Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer Case T3864/94 15/9/98. In the leading authority on essential facilities in Europe, Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG Case C7/97 26/11/98, the applicant argued unsuccessfully that the respondent’s newspaper home-delivery scheme, which was the only one existing in Austria on a national scale, was an essential facility and that the respondent was therefore obliged to allow access to the scheme by competing products on market conditions and at market prices. The court’s decsision was that access would not be ordered unless the facility is indispensable to competition in a downstream market. Since that decision, the issue has arisen in a number of refusal to supply cases, but the decisions have turned on findings of abuse of market power rather than emphasising an essential facilities doctrine. [CCA.PTIIIA.80]

Hilmer recommendations

The Report on National Competition Policy (Hilmer Report) in August 1993 considered two aspects to the essential facilities issue in the context of the Australian economy in which, at that time, government businesses held monopolies in electricity, water, rail, ports and airports. The first related to obtaining access. Hilmer expressed the view that, there were markets in which the introduction of effective competition required competitors to have access to facilities that exhibited natural monopoly characteristics, and therefore could not be duplicated economically. Hilmer gave as examples electricity generation and telecommunications services: Hilmer Report, p 239. The second issue related to access pricing. The Hilmer Report expressed the view that, where the “essential facility” is vertically-integrated in upstream or downstream markets – as is commonly the case with traditional public monopolies such as telecommunications, electricity and rail - the potential to charge monopoly prices may be combined with an incentive to inhibit competitors’ access to the facility: Hilmer Report, p 241. The Committee recommended that there should be a general legal regime for access to essential facilities under which access rights are created by declaration by a designated Commonwealth, State or Territory Minister on the recommendation of the National Competition Council. Part IIIA is the result. [CCA.PTIIIA.100]

Competition Principles Agreement

This commitment was met by the introduction of Pt IIIA of the TPA in 1995. Clause 6 also envisaged that States and Territories may introduce access regimes of their own. It provides that the Commonwealth regime is not intended to apply to essential facilities in a State or Territory where the State or Territory has in place a conforming access regime, unless either the NCC determines that the regime is ineffective having regard to the influence of the facility beyond the jurisdiction of the State or Territory, or difficulties arise from the facility being in more than one jurisdiction.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

223

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Clause 6 of the Competition Principles Agreement responded to the Hilmer recommendations by providing for the Commonwealth to put forward legislation to establish an access regime in relation to essential facilities and set out the circumstances in which such a regime would operate.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AA

[CCA.44AA.20]

DIVISION 1 – PRELIMINARY 44AA

Objects of Part

The objects of this Part are to: (a) promote the economically efficient operation of, use of and investment in the infrastructure by which services are provided, thereby promoting effective competition in upstream and downstream markets; and (b) provide a framework and guiding principles to encourage a consistent approach to access regulation in each industry. [S 44AA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

SECTION 44AA COMMENTARY Summary ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44AA.20] Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................. [CCA.44AA.40] Declaration process .................................................................................................................... [CCA.44AA.60] Arbitration process ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.44AA.80] Telecommunications access regime ......................................................................................... [CCA.44AA.100] Further reading .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.44AA.120]

[CCA.44AA.20]

Summary

Part IIIA is based on the notion that competition, efficiency and public interest are increased by overriding the exclusive rights of the owners of “monopoly” facilities by providing access to third parties on reasonable terms and conditions. As this section states, the object is to promote effective competition in upstream and downstream markets by promoting economically efficient operation and use of, and investment in, infrastructure. Although, for ease of reference the focus in this commentary is on access to facilities, in fact the Act is directed to access to services provided by means of a facility. A facility is to be regarded as essential if it meets the following substantive criteria: • access would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market other than the market for the service; • it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service; • the facility is of national significance, having regard to its size and the importance of the facility to constitutional trade or commerce or the national economy; and • access would not be contrary to the public interest. Part IIIA sets out the following processes by which access to essential facilities may be obtained or not obtained: • effective State or Territory access regimes; • access undertakings; and • declaration/arbitration. Part IIIA also provides procedures designed to provide certainty in relation to new infrastructure that might otherwise be the subject to declaration/arbitration: • approved competitive tenders; and • advance rulings. State & Territory Regimes (Division 2A): States and Territories can proclaim their own access regimes, which the NCC assesses for suitability applying declaration criteria. The Federal Treasurer then determines whether or not the regime is effective. If it is, the declaration/arbitration process does not apply.

224

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

[CCA.44AA.40]

s 44AA

Access Undertakings (Division 6): the owner or operator of a facility that might be the subject of an access application can prepare an undertaking setting out the terms and conditions on which it is prepared to allow open access. The undertaking is submitted to the ACCC and may be accepted by the ACCC, through a public process, taking account of the s 44AA objects, the public interest, the legitimate interests of the facility owner. The same process may be utilised in relation to access codes. Declaration/Arbitration (Division 2): This process for access to essential facilities includes a declaration process – determination of whether or not a facility meets the criteria for declaration – and an arbitration process where a facility is declared and the parties cannot agree on access terms. The declaration/arbitration processes are complex and involve appeal rights capable of making the process quite lengthy and expensive. The first part of the process – the declaration process – operates as follows: • The Federal Treasurer, any responsible State or Territory Minister or any other person may apply to the National Competition Council (NCC) for a declaration that a facility is an essential facility. • The NCC makes a recommendation to the relevant Minister. The NCC can only make a positive recommendation if specified criteria are met. These are set out at [CCA.44G.40]. • The Minister must then decide whether or not to declare the facility an essential facility. The criteria the NCC applies must also be applied by the Minister. • The person requesting access and the facility owner both have a right to apply to the Australian Competition Tribunal for review of the Minister’s decision. Access arrangements may be negotiated privately between the parties and registered with the ACCC, but if that does not occur, disputes may be arbitrated as follows: • Either the person seeking access or the owner may notify the ACCC of an access dispute. • The ACCC must then conduct a private arbitration of the dispute and make a decision taking into account certain specified matters. Before publishing its final decision the ACCC must issue a draft and give the parties an opportunity to comment on the draft. • Any of the parties to the arbitration who is dissatisfied with the decision may apply to the Australian Competition Tribunal for review of the decision. • Any party dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal may appeal to the Federal Court on matters of law only. Flow-charts explaining the processes are at [CCA.44AA.60] and [CCA.44AA.80].

Advance Rulings (Division 2AA): Where a person has “a material interest in a particular service”, they may apply to the relevant Minister for a decision that the service is ineligible for declaration. This is, in effect, an advance ruling procedure for proposed new infrastructure. Infrastructure proponents can, through this process, obtain certainty before committing to construct the infrastructure. However, an ineligibility decision can only be made by the Minister if the NCC advises that the facility will not be eligible for declaration because, when constructed, the services it provides will not meet all of the criteria for declaration. An ineligibility decision can be in force for as long as the Minister determines, but it must be in force for at least 20 years. [CCA.44AA.40]

Proposals for Change

The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), reporting in March 2015, agreed with the views expressed by the Productivity Commission in its 2013 report, that the National Access Regime is likely to

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

225

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Competitive tenders (Division 2B): Special provisions apply to competitive tenders for facilities owned by the Commonwealth or a State or Territory. The ACCC, through a 90-day public process, may approve the tender process if it is satisfied that access on reasonable terms to services proposed to be provided by the facility will result from the process and that the process complies with regulations setting out the tender procedures and rules, including the selection criteria. If the ACCC approves the process, the declaration/arbitration process does not apply for the term of the ACCC’s approval.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AA

[CCA.44AA.40]

generate net benefits to the community. The Harper Panel recommended that the scope of the regime should be confined to ensure its use is limited to the exceptional cases where the benefits arising from increased competition in dependent markets are likely to outweigh the costs of regulated third-party access. The Panel also expressed the view that the Australian Competition Tribunal should be empowered to undertake a merits review of access decisions, including hearing directly from employees of the business concerned and relevant experts where that would assist, while maintaining suitable statutory time limits for the review process. In its response issued on 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it would amend the public interest criterion (see s 44G(2)(f)) in line with the recommendations of both the Productivity Commission and the Harper Review, to provide that a positive finding of national interest will be required rather than the current position in which all that is required is a finding that declaration is not contrary to the public interest. The Government adopted the Productivity Commission approach to otherwise refining the regime’s declaration criteria: see [1.44G.40].

226

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

[CCA.44AA.80] [CCA.44AA.60]

s 44AA

Declaration process

The declaration process is described in the following flowchart.

Arbitration process

This Division sets out the rules for arbitrating an access dispute when the parties are unable to agree on access terms and conditions.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

227

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[CCA.44AA.80]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44AA

[CCA.44AA.80]

The process is described in the following diagram:

[CCA.44AA.100]

Telecommunications access regime

Part IIIA does not apply to access to telecommunications services. Access to those services is dealt with in Pt XIC. Access to broadcasting transmission towers by holders of commercial television broadcasting licenses and datacasters is governed by the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998 (Cth), which provides for the ACCC to arbitrate on disputes over access. [CCA.44AA.120]

Further reading

See Miller, “The Essential Facilities Conundrum” (2015) 23 AJCCL 120; Quinn & Healy, “Part IIIA – the Current State of Play” (2014) AJCCL 244; Clough, “Economic Duplication and Access to Essential Facilities in Australia” (2000) 28 ABLR 325; Hood, “Third Party Access in Queensland: Lessons for all 228

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44AA.120]

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

s 44B

Australian States” (1999) 7 TPLJ 4; Marshall and Mulheron, “Charging for Admission: A Lawyer’s Guide to Access Pricing Under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act” (1998) 6 TPLJ 132; Abadee, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine and the National Access Regime: A Residual Role for Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act?” (1997) 5 TPLJ 27. 44B

Definitions

In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears: access code means a code referred to in section 44ZZAA. [Def insrt Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1]

access code application means: (a) an access code given to the Commission; or (b) a request made to the Commission for the withdrawal or variation of an access code; or (c) an application under subsection 44ZZBB(4) for an extension of the period for which an access code is in operation. [Def insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5]

access code decision means: (a) a decision under section 44ZZAA to accept or reject an access code; or (b) a decision under section 44ZZAA to consent or refuse to consent to the withdrawal or variation of an access code; or (c) a decision under section 44ZZBB to extend or refuse to extend the period for which an access code is in operation. [Def insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

access undertaking means an undertaking under section 44ZZA. access undertaking application means: (a) an access undertaking given to the Commission; or (b) a request made to the Commission for the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking; or (ba) a request made to the Commission under subsection 44ZZAAB(7) to consent to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle included as a term of an access undertaking; or (c) an application under subsection 44ZZBB(1) for an extension of the period for which an access undertaking is in operation. access undertaking decision means: (a) a decision under section 44ZZA to accept or reject an access undertaking; or (b) a decision under section 44ZZA to consent or refuse to consent to the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking; or (ba) a decision under subsection 44ZZAAB(7) to consent or refuse to consent to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle included as a term of an access undertaking; or (c) a decision under section 44ZZBB to extend or refuse to extend the period for which an access undertaking is in operation. [Def am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 2; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8]

Commonwealth Minister means the Minister.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

229

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Def am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 1; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44B constitutional trade or (a) trade (b) trade (c) trade

commerce means any of the following: or commerce among the States; or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia; or commerce between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories.

declaration means a declaration made by the designated Minister under Division 2. declaration recommendation means a recommendation made by the Council under section 44F. declared service means a service for which a declaration is in operation. designated Minister has the meaning given by section 44D. determination means a determination made by the Commission under Division 3. director has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001. [Def am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 553]

entity means a person, partnership or joint venture. final determination means a determination other than an interim determination. [Def insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

fixed principle has the meaning given by section 44ZZAAB. [Def insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 3]

ineligibility recommendation means a recommendation made by the Council under section 44LB. [Def insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1]

interim determination means a determination that is expressed to be an interim determination. [Def insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10]

modifications includes additions, omissions and substitutions. National Gas Law means: (a) the National Gas Law set out in the Schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia as in force from time to time, as that Law applies as a law of South Australia; or (b) if an Act of another State or of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory applies the National Gas Law set out in the Schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia, as in force from time to time, as a law of that other State or of that Territory—the National Gas Law as so applied; or (c) the Western Australian Gas Legislation; or (d) the National Gas (Commonwealth) Law (within the meaning of the Australian Energy Market Act 2004); or (e) the Offshore Western Australian Pipelines (Commonwealth) Law (within the meaning of the Australian Energy Market Act 2004). [Def am Act 17 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14; Act 60 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 4 items 3 and 4; insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 72]

officer has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001. [Def am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 554]

party means: (a)

in relation to an arbitration of an access dispute—a party to the arbitration, as mentioned in section 44U; (b) in relation to a determination—a party to the arbitration in which the Commission made the determination.

230

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

s 44B

proposed facility means a facility that is proposed to be constructed (but the construction of which has not started) that will be: (a) structurally separate from any existing facility; or (b) a major extension of an existing facility. [Def insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

provider, in relation to a service, means the entity that is the owner or operator of the facility that is used (or is to be used) to provide the service. responsible Minister means: (a) the Premier, in the case of a State; (b) the Chief Minister, in the case of a Territory. revocation recommendation means a recommendation made by the Council under section 44J. service means a service provided by means of a facility and includes: (a) the use of an infrastructure facility such as a road or railway line; (b) handling or transporting things such as goods or people; (c) a communications service or similar service; but does not include: (d) the supply of goods; or (e) the use of intellectual property; or (f) the use of a production process; except to the extent that it is an integral but subsidiary part of the service. State or Territory access regime law means: (a) a law of a State or Territory that establishes or regulates an access regime; or (b) a law of a State or Territory that regulates an industry that is subject to an access regime; or (c) a State/Territory energy law. [Def am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 73; insrt Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1]

State or Territory body means: (a) a State or Territory; (b) an authority of a State or Territory. third party, in relation to a service, means a person who wants access to the service or wants a change to some aspect of the person’s existing access to the service. [S 44B am Act 102 of 2010; Act 17 of 2009; Act 60 of 2008; Act 45 of 2007; Act 92 of 2006; Act 134 of 2003; Act 55 of 2001; Act 28 of 1997; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44B COMMENTARY Concept: access code ................................................................................................................... [CCA.44B.20] Concept: access undertaking ........................................................................................................ [CCA.44B.40] Concept: facility ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.44B.60] Concept: service .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.44B.100] Concept: use of ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.44B.120] Concept: production process ....................................................................................................... [CCA.44B.140] Further reading ............................................................................................................................ [CCA.44B.160]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

231

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Concept: provider .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.44B.80]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44B [CCA.44B.20]

[CCA.44B.20] Concept: access code

As an alternative to the declaration process set out in this Part, bodies authorised to do so by regulation may lodge an access code with the ACCC setting out general rules for access to specified services. [CCA.44B.40]

Concept: access undertaking

As an alternative to the declaration process set out in this Part, the owner or operator of a facility may give the ACCC an undertaking setting out the terms and conditions on which access to services provided by use of the facility will be provided to third parties. This process, described in s 44ZZA, is only available if the relevant service has not been the subject of a declaration under this Part. [CCA.44B.60]

Concept: facility

This term is important because declarations can only be made of “services” and that term is defined to mean services provided by means of certain types of “facilities”. The term “facility” is not defined for the purposes of Part IIIA. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the term as “equipment or physical means for doing something”. There is a clear policy intention that the access regime is to apply broadly, within the limitations placed on the definition of the term “services”: see [CCA.44B.80]. Accordingly the term “facility” should not be defined narrowly. The Macquarie Dictionary defines “facility” as “something that makes possible the easier performance of any action; advantage; transport facilities; to afford someone every facility for doing something”. In Part IIIA the term means a physical asset, or set of physical assets, essential for service provision which also exhibits the features of a natural monopoly: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. In that case the Tribunal concluded that the relevant facility was the whole of the airport because it comprised the minimum set of physical assets necessary for international aircraft to land, unload and load passengers and freight and depart in a safe and commercially sustainable manner. Although the term is not defined for the purposes of Part IIIA, the term is defined for the purposes of the telecommunications access provisions of the CCA by reference to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). That Act defines the term to mean “any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network or any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit pole or other structure or thing used, or for use, in or in connection with a telecommunications network”. [CCA.44B.80]

Concept: provider

This term is important because it determines who was the respondent to an access application. A “provider” is either the owner or operator of a facility that is used to provide a service. [CCA.44B.100]

Concept: service

This definition is central to the access regime because it prescribes the types of facilities to which access may be ordered. The definition makes it clear that a service is something separate and distinct from a facility although the service may consist of merely using a facility: Rail Access Corp v New South Wales Minerals Council Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 517; 158 ALR 323; [1998] ATPR 41-663. Therefore, subject to the exceptions referred to below, a “service” is nothing more that a right or benefit provided, granted or conferred in relation to a facility. The definition includes examples, but they do not limit its operation. They include: • the use of infrastructure;

232

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

[CCA.44B.120]

s 44B

• handling or transporting people or things; • communications services. However, the term “service” does not include use of a production process, use of intellectual property or the supply of goods, except to the extent that those services are an integral but subsidiary part of a relevant service provided by means of a facility. Although the Australian access regime is not to apply in such cases, s 46 remains available in cases like Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925, where refusal to supply is found to amount to misuse of market power. EXAMPLE • Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092. The Tribunal declared the services at Sydney Airport for the use of runways, taxiways, parking aprons and other associated facilities necessary to allow aircraft carrying domestic passengers to: take off and land using the runways at Sydney Airport; and move between the runways and the passenger terminals at the airport. • Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. The services declared were the use of the freight aprons, hard stands, areas where equipment may be stored and areas where freight may be loaded and unloaded at Sydney International Airport. • Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 867; (1999) 164 ALR 203; [1999] ATPR 41-705. The court held, on the facts, that a rail line used to ship ore from a mine to the port was an integrated part of the production process and therefore not a “service” within the meaning of s 44B. • Re Australian Union of Students (1997) 140 FLR 167; 147 ALR 458; [1997] ATPR 41-573. The Tribunal questioned, without deciding, whether a government payroll deduction system can constitute a service. The Tribunal also questioned whether the service as defined by the applicant was a conglomerate of elements of a service and terms of access to the service, thereby rendering the application invalid because it attempted to combine the two separate stages of an access matter. • Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004. The Council decided that the use of a rail track network, including associated infrastructure, constituted a service.

[CCA.44B.120]

Concept: use of

Whether or not an infrastructure facility comes within the term “use of a production process” is to be determined by reference to whether the process is actually creating or making a product or transforming one thing into another. A rail service involves the use of infrastructure or a facility to transport a product from one location to another, but the railway line and associated infrastructure does not transform that product into something different. Even if the railway line is an integral and essential part of an overall process used to produce a product, this does not make the use of the railway line the use of a production process itself: BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2006] FCA 1764; [2007] ATPR 42-141.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

233

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

The term “service” includes “use of” an infrastructure facility and excludes “use of” intellectual property or a production process. The words “use of” import the idea of employing, applying, operating or exploiting the thing used: Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 867; (1999) 164 ALR 203; [1999] ATPR 41-705; BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2006] FCA 1764; [2007] ATPR 42-141.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44B

[CCA.44B.120]

[CCA.44B.140]

Concept: production process

The use of a production process is not included in the concept except of a “service” to the extent that the production process is an integral but subsidiary part of the service. What does the Act mean by the term “production process”? The term is not defined in the Act. The “use of a production process” involves “the systematic integrated sequence of operations used by the operator leading to the production or transformation of something”: BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] HCA 45; (2008) 236 CLR 145; 82 ALJR 1482; 249 ALR 418. As Greenwood J explained in BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2007] FCAFC 157; (2007) 162 FCR 234; 247 ALR 104; [2007] ATPR 42-190 at [163]: Since a production process is normally deployed for the purpose of producing something capable of supply in a market, the notion that the end point of the process of production or transformation might result in a marketable commodity might well be a matter that warrants analysis in any given case. However, a production process might comprise a sequence of steps that, for example, include drilling and blasting operations; the extraction of ore and waste material from the mine site; the removal of waste; the collection and haulage of ore; crushing and screening; beneficiation, stockpiling (mining operations). Those steps might commence with extraction and conclude with ore in a changed state yet not a marketable commodity. Nevertheless, the sequence of steps might represent a systematic sequence of integrated operations which logically give rise to a factual conclusion that they comprise a production process. The Full Court decided that use of a rail line dedicated to BHP Billion’s iron ore extraction, processing and shipping operations in Western Australia was not “use of a production process”. Rather, the rail line was a connector of two discrete production processes. EXAMPLE • BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] HCA 45; (2008) 236 CLR 145; 82 ALJR 1482; 249 ALR 418. The use of a dedicated rail line for the movement of processed iron ore from the mine to the port was found not to be use of a production facility because the rail line was not an integrated part of the overall process. Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 867; (1999) 164 ALR 203; [1999] ATPR 41-705 not followed. • BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2006] FCA 1764; [2007] ATPR 42-141. The use of a dedicated rail line for the movement of processed iron ore from the mine to the port was found not to be use of a production facility because the rail line was not part of the “production process” as that term should be defined. Rail lines do not transform a product into something different. Hamersley was incorrectly decided. • Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 867; (1999) 164 ALR 203; [1999] ATPR 41-705. The use of a dedicated rail line for the movement of processed iron ore from the mine to the port was found to be use of a production facility because the rail line was an integrated part of the overall process.

[CCA.44B.160]

Further reading

See National Competition Council, The National Access Regime: A Guide to Pt IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (December 2002); Marshall and Mulheron, “Charging for Admission: A Lawyer’s Guide to Access Pricing Under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act” (1998) 6 TPLJ 132; Abadee, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine and the National Access Regime: A Residual Role for Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act?” (1997) 5 TPLJ 27.

234

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

[CCA.44CA.20]

44C

s 44C

How this Part applies to partnerships and joint ventures

(1) [Section applies to providers who are partnerships or joint ventures] This section applies if the provider of a service is a partnership or joint venture that consists of 2 or more corporations. Those corporations are referred to in this section as the participants. (2) [Participants may perform actions on provider’s behalf] If this Part requires or permits something to be done by the provider, the thing may be done by one or more of the participants on behalf of the provider. (3) [Bearing of costs] If a provision of this Part refers to the provider bearing any costs, the provision applies as if the provision referred to any of the participants bearing any costs. (4) [Participants may perform actions on provider’s behalf] If a provision of this Part refers to the provider doing something, the provision applies as if the provision referred to one or more of the participants doing that thing on behalf of the provider. (5) [Reference to provider refers to any person responsible for control] If: (a)

a provision of this Part requires the provider to do something, or prohibits the provider from doing something; and (b) a contravention of the provision is an offence; the provision applies as if a reference to the provider were a reference to any person responsible for the day-to-day management and control of the provider. (6) [Reference to provider refers to any person responsible for control] If: (a)

a provision of this Part requires a provider to do something, or prohibits a provider doing something; and (b) a contravention of the provision is not an offence; the provision applies as if the reference to provider were a reference to each participant and to any other person responsible for the day-to-day management and control of the provider. [S 44C insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44C COMMENTARY [CCA.44C.20]

Outline

This is a technical provision designed to ensure that access declarations made against a partnership or joint venture, declaring that the partnership or joint venture is to provide access to a service which it provides, is effective.

SECTION 44CA COMMENTARY [CCA.44CA.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to introduce a new s 44CA to define “declaration criteria” as follows: (1) The declaration criteria for a service are:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

235

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

The section imposes any obligation which arises as a result of the application of Part IIIA in relation to a service provided by a partnership or joint venture on each of the partners or joint venturers individually.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44D

[CCA.44CA.20] (a) that access (or increased access) to the service, on reasonable terms and conditions, following a declaration of the service would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market (whether or not in Australia), other than the market for the service; and Note: Market is defined in section 4E. (b) that the facility that is used (or will be used) to provide the service could meet the total foreseeable demand in the market at the least cost; and (c) that the facility is of national significance, having regard to: (i) the size of the facility; or (ii) the importance of the facility to constitutional trade or commerce; or (iii) the importance of the facility to the national economy; and (d) that access (or increased access) to the service, on reasonable terms and conditions, following a declaration of the service would promote the public interest. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the cost referred to in that paragraph is to take into account the costs, to the provider of the service, of co ordinating multiple users of the facility. (3) Without limiting the matters to which the Council may have regard for the purposes of section 44G, or the designated Minister may have regard for the purposes of section 44H, in considering whether paragraph (1)(d) applies the Council or designated Minister must have regard to: (a) the effect that declaring the service would have on investment in: (i) infrastructure services; and (ii) markets that depend on access to the service; and (b) the administrative and compliance costs that would be incurred by the provider of the service if the service is declared.

Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. 44D

Meaning of designated Minister

(1) [Commonwealth Minister is designated Minister unless exception applies] The Commonwealth Minister is the designated Minister unless subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) applies. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 3]

(2) [When State/Territory Minister is responsible Minister: declaration of service] In relation to declaring a service in a case where: (a) the provider is a State or Territory body; and (b) the State or Territory concerned is a party to the Competition Principles Agreement; the responsible Minister of the State or Territory is the designated Minister. (3) [When State/Territory Minister is responsible Minister: revocation of declaration] In relation to revoking a declaration that was made by the responsible Minister of a State or Territory, the responsible Minister of that State or Territory is the designated Minister. (4) [When State/Territory Minister is responsible Minister: declared service] In relation to deciding whether a service is ineligible to be a declared service in a case where: (a) a person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service is a State or Territory body; and (b) the State or Territory concerned is a party to the Competition Principles Agreement; the responsible Minister of the State or Territory is the designated Minister. [Subs (4) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 4]

236

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 1 – Preliminary

[CCA.44D.20]

s 44DA

(5) [When State/Territory Minister is responsible Minister: revocation of decision] In relation to revoking a decision: (a) that a service is ineligible to be a declared service; and (b) that was made by the responsible Minister of a State or Territory; the responsible Minister of that State or Territory is the designated Minister. [Subs (5) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 4] [S 44D am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44D COMMENTARY [CCA.44D.20]

Outline

This provision determines which Minister is the Minister who is entitled to make and revoke access declarations. Access declarations can only be made or revoked by the “designated Minister”. In some cases it can be a State or Territory Minister, but in the majority of cases it will be the federal Treasurer. Where the provider of the service to be declared is a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory (for example, electricity utility) and the State or Territory is a party to the Competition Principles Agreement, then the relevant Minister is the responsible Minister in that State or Territory. 44DA

The principles in the Competition Principles Agreement have status as guidelines

(1) [Certain principles are not binding rules] For the avoidance of doubt: (a) [Repealed] (b) [Repealed] (c) the requirement, under subsection 44M(4), that the Council apply the relevant principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement in deciding whether to recommend to the Commonwealth Minister that he or she should decide that an access regime is, or is not, an effective access regime; and (d) the requirement, under subsection 44N(2), that the Commonwealth Minister, in making a decision on a recommendation received from the Council, apply the relevant principles set out in the Agreement; are obligations that the Council and the relevant Ministers must treat each individual relevant principle as having the status of a guideline rather than a binding rule. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 2 and 3]

(2) [Additional matters of an effective access regime] An effective access regime may contain additional matters that are not inconsistent with Competition Principles Agreement principles. [S 44DA am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

SECTION 44DA COMMENTARY Concept: economically efficient operation of the facility ............................................................. [CCA.44DA.40]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

237

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Outline ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44DA.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44DA [CCA.44DA.20]

[CCA.44DA.20] Outline

The relevance of this section is that it links back to the Competition Principles Agreement to provide a guide for determining, under other sections in this Part, whether access should be declared to particular services and whether an access regime is an “effective” regime for the purposes of this Part. The relevant provision of the Competition Principles Agreement is cl 6(4), which sets out 16 indicia of a conforming State or Territory access regime. Those indicia are: (a) the requirement for an independent body to determine access disputes; (b) emphasis on parties negotiating an enforceable access agreement rather than resorting to arbitration in the first instance; (c) an arbitration process that takes into account: (i) the legitimate business interests of the owner of the facility; (ii) the cost to the owner of providing access and the economic value to the owner of any additional investment the access seeker has agreed to make; (iii) firm and binding contractual obligations of those already using the facility; (iv) operational and technical requirements for the safe operation of the facility; (v) the economically efficient operation of the facility; (vi) the benefit to the public from having competitive markets; (d) separate accounting arrangements for the elements of the business covered by the access arrangements; (e) prohibition on the owner or user of the facility engaging in conduct for the purpose of hindering access by others; (f) where the service is covered by more that one State or Territory access regime, consistency between the regimes. [CCA.44DA.40]

Concept: economically efficient operation of the facility

One of the indicia to which reference is to be made to determine whether an access regime is an effective regime is whether or not the arbitration process for resolution of disputes under the regime takes account of the economically efficient operation of the facility. The term “economic efficiency” has at least three well understood dimensions in the field of economics: productive efficiency; allocative efficiency; and dynamic efficiency. See Re Michael (Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline) [2002] WASCA 231; (2002) 25 WAR 511; [2002] ATPR 41-886. In Re Michael (Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline) [2002] WASCA 231; (2002) 25 WAR 511; [2002] ATPR 41-886 at [91] (ATPR) the Western Australian Supreme Court quoted with approval the following statement from the Hilmer Report: Efficiency is a fundamental objective of competition policy because of the role it plays in enhancing community welfare. There are three components of economic efficiency: • Technical or productive effıciency, which is achieved where individual firms produce the goods and services that they offer to consumers at least cost. Competition can enhance technical efficiency by, for example, stimulating improvements in managerial performance, work practices, and the use of material inputs. • Allocative effıciency is achieved where resources used to produce a set of goods or services are allocated to their highest valued uses (ie those that provide the greatest benefit relative to costs). Competition tends to increase allocative efficiency, because firms that can use particular resources more productively can afford to bid those resources away from firms that cannot achieve the same level of returns. • Dynamic effıciency reflects the need for industries to make timely changes to technology and products in response to changes in consumer tastes and in productive opportunities. Competition in markets for goods and services provides incentives to undertake research and

238

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44E.20]

s 44F

development, effect innovation in product design, reform management structures and strategies and create new products and production processes. 44E

This Part binds the Crown

(1) [Part binds the Crown] This Part binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of each of the States, of the Australian Capital Territory and of the Northern Territory. (2) [Crown immune to liability] Nothing in this Part makes the Crown liable to be prosecuted for an offence. (3) [Liability for Commonwealth, State/Territory authorities] The protection in subsection (2) does not apply to an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory. [S 44E insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44E COMMENTARY [CCA.44E.20]

Outline

The section makes it clear that all governments are subject to the access regime provisions of Pt IIIA. This means that any Commonwealth, State or Territory owned facility that provides a service which comes within this Part may be the subject of an access application. The same applies to facilities owned by their statutory authorities. However, when it comes to offences for breach of this Part, State and Territory governments cannot be liable for prosecution, although their statutory authorities can. The application of the access regime to States and Territories is not limited to circumstances in which they carry on a business.

DIVISION 2 – DECLARED SERVICES SUBDIVISION A – RECOMMENDATION BY THE COUNCIL 44F

Person may request recommendation

(1) [Declaring a service] The designated Minister, or any other person, may make a written application to the Council asking the Council to recommend that a particular service be declared. (2) [Council must make recommendation] After receiving the application, the Council: (a) must tell the provider of the service that the Council has received the application, unless the provider is the applicant; and (b) must, after having regard to the objects of this Part, recommend to the designated Minister: (i) that the service be declared, with the expiry date specified in the recommendation; or (ii) that the service not be declared. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Council’s recommendation: see section 44GA. Note 2: The Council may request information and invite public submissions on the application: see sections 44FA and 44GB.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

239

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44F Note 3: The Council must publish its recommendation: see section 44GC. [Subs (2) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 1–3; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 12 and 13]

(3) [Not declaring a service] If the applicant is a person other than the designated Minister, the Council may recommend that the service not be declared if the Council thinks that the application was not made in good faith. This subsection does not limit the grounds on which the Council may decide to recommend that the service not be declared. (4) [Other facilities] In deciding what recommendation to make, the Council must consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service. This subsection does not limit the grounds on which the Council may decide to recommend that the service be declared or not be declared. (5) [Withdrawal of application] The applicant may withdraw the application at any time before the Council makes a recommendation relating to it. (6) [Applicant may request Council to vary application] The applicant may request, in writing, the Council to vary the application at any time before the Council makes a recommendation relating to it. [Subs (6) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 4]

(7) [Council must make or reject variation] If a request is made under subsection (6), the Council must decide to: (a) make the variation; or (b) reject the variation. [Subs (7) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 4]

(8) [S 44F(7) decision not a legislative instrument] An instrument making a decision under subsection (7) is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (8) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 4]

(9) [Rejection of variation if unduly prejudicial] The Council may reject the variation if it is satisfied that the requested variation is of a kind, or the request for the variation is made at a time or in a manner, that: (a) would unduly prejudice the provider (if the provider is not the applicant) or anyone else the Council considers has a material interest in the application; or (b) would unduly delay the process for considering the application. [Subs (9) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 4] [S 44F am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6A prescribes the types of information which must be included in an application to the National Competition Council under s 44F for a declaration recommendation in respect of a particular service.]

SECTION 44F COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................ [CCA.44F.20] Making an application .................................................................................................................... [CCA.44F.40] Role of the NCC ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.44F.60] Relevant tests: uneconomical to duplicate .................................................................................... [CCA.44F.80] Applications in bad faith ............................................................................................................... [CCA.44F.100] Withdrawing an application .......................................................................................................... [CCA.44F.120]

240

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44F.80]

s 44F

[CCA.44F.20] Outline This is the provision under which the process of seeking to have a service declared an essential service is commenced. The section empowers anyone who wishes to do so (including relevant Ministers) to apply to the NCC (s 29A) for a service to be declared. The NCC cannot recommend (and the relevant Minister cannot declare) a service to be declared (and consequently open to access by third parties) unless each of the six matters set out at [CCA.44G.20] is satisfied. The NCC can only recommend that a service be declared if it is the particular service for which the applicant has applied for a declaration: Rio Tinto Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 6; 246 ALR 1; [2008] ATPR 42-214; Re Services Sydney Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 7; (2005) 227 ALR 140; [2006] ATPR 42-099 at [21]; Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092 at [112]. Although it will often be the case that access applications involve vertically integrated enterprises there is nothing in the Act which limits the access rules to enterprises of that type. The rules can apply to any anyone who controls an essential service: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. [CCA.44F.40]

Making an application

The Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (reg 6A) set out what must be included in an application to the NCC for declaration of a service as an essential service. The application must contain: • the applicant’s name and address; • a description of the service sought to be declared essential and the facilities used to provide that service; • the name of each provider of the service and the name of the owner of the facilities; • the reasons for seeking access; • a brief description of how access would promote competition in some other market; • a brief description of that market; • the reason why it would be uneconomical to duplicate the facility; • the reason why the facility is of national significance; • a description of how access could be provided and details of any risk to health or safety; and • a description of the efforts made to negotiate access.

[CCA.44F.80] Relevant tests: uneconomical to duplicate Before the NCC can recommend that a service be declared it must be satisfied of all of the matters set out in s 44G. One of the matters of which the NCC must be satisfied under s 44G is that it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service: s 44G(2)(b). See [CCA.44G.120].

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

241

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[CCA.44F.60] Role of the NCC Once an application has been made the NCC is obliged to inform the provider of the service to which the application relates, review all relevant information concerning the application including determining whether the application comes within the Act, consider the matters covered by s 44G and make a recommendation to the relevant Minister on whether or not the service should be declared. In making its decision the NCC considers submissions by interested parties, including the provider of the service and the owner of the facility, but it does so on the basis of written submissions. The NCC does not conduct hearings.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44FA

[CCA.44F.80]

Section 44F(4) contains a related consideration. The NCC must, in deciding what recommendation to make, consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service. [CCA.44F.100]

Applications in bad faith

If the NCC concludes that an application is not made in good faith it can decide not to make a recommendation to the relevant Minister: s 44F(3). [CCA.44F.120]

Withdrawing an application

The applicant for a declaration may withdraw it at any time prior to the NCC making a recommendation to the relevant Minister: s 44F(5). 44FA

Council may request information

(1) [Request via written notice] The Council may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Council, within a specified period, information of the kind specified in the notice that the Council considers may be relevant to deciding what recommendation to make on an application under section 44F. (2) [Copies of notice] The Council must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) if the person is not the applicant—the applicant; and (ii) if the person is not the provider of the service—the provider; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (3) [Council to consider information given in compliance with notice] In deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. [S 44FA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

44G

Limits on the Council recommending declaration of a service

(1) [Access undertaking precludes recommendation] The Council cannot recommend declaration of a service that is the subject of an access undertaking in operation under Division 6. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

(1A) [Tender process: where Council cannot recommend declaration] While a decision of the Commission is in force under subsection 44PA(3) approving a tender process, for the construction and operation of a facility, as a competitive tender process, the Council cannot recommend declaration of any service provided by means of the facility that was specified under paragraph 44PA(2)(a). [Subs (1A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 15]

(2) [Council considerations for recommendation] The Council cannot recommend that a service be declared unless it is satisfied of all of the following matters: (a) that access (or increased access) to the service would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market (whether or not in Australia), other than the market for the service;

242

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

s 44G

(b) that it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service; (c) that the facility is of national significance, having regard to: (i) the size of the facility; or (ii) the importance of the facility to constitutional trade or commerce; or (iii) the importance of the facility to the national economy; (d) [Repealed] (e) that access to the service: (i) is not already the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB); or (ii) is the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB), but the Council believes that, since the Commonwealth Minister’s decision was published, there have been substantial modifications of the access regime or of the relevant principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; (f) that access (or increased access) to the service would not be contrary to the public interest. [Subs (2) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 5 and 6; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 16]

(3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 7; am Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998]

(4) [Repealed] [Subs (4) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 7]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 7; subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 74; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

(6) [Service cannot be declared: pipeline] The Council cannot recommend declaration of a service provided by means of a pipeline (within the meaning of a National Gas Law) if: (a) a 15-year no-coverage determination is in force under the National Gas Law in respect of the pipeline; or (b) a price regulation exemption is in force under the National Gas Law in respect of the pipeline. [Subs (6) subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 74; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

(7) [Service cannot be declared: other decision in force] The Council cannot recommend that a service be declared if there is in force a decision of the designated Minister under section 44LG that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. [Subs (7) reinsrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 5; rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 74; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

SECTION 44G COMMENTARY Summary ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44G.20] Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................... [CCA.44G.40] Practice and procedure: declaration process ............................................................................... [CCA.44G.60] Concept: particular service ........................................................................................................... [CCA.44G.80] Concept: promote competition .................................................................................................... [CCA.44G.100]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

243

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[S 44G am Act 102 of 2010; Act 45 of 2007; Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44G

[CCA.44G.20]

Concept: uneconomical to duplicate ........................................................................................... Concept: national significance .................................................................................................... Concept: effective access regime ............................................................................................... Concept: contrary to the public interest ...................................................................................... Time limit ..................................................................................................................................... Cases ..........................................................................................................................................

[CCA.44G.20]

[CCA.44G.120] [CCA.44G.140] [CCA.44G.160] [CCA.44G.180] [CCA.44G.200] [CCA.44G.220]

Summary

The NCC cannot recommend and the relevant Minister cannot declare a service to be open to access by third parties unless they are satisfied on all of the following matters: • Access must be sought to a particular service provided by the facility owner or controller: Rio Tinto Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 6; 246 ALR 1; [2008] ATPR 42-214; Re Services Sydney Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 7; (2005) 227 ALR 140; [2006] ATPR 42-099 at [21]; Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092 at [112]. • Access must promote competition in another market. That market does not have to be in Australia. • It must be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility providing the service. • The facility to which access is required must be of national significance having regard to its size and importance to either the national economy or interstate or overseas trade or commerce. • There must not be an existing effective access regime in relation to the facility, or the facility not subject to the regime for other reasons. • Access must not be contrary to the public interest. There are a number of circumstances in which a facility may not be declared. They include, if it is covered by the telecommunications regimes in Pt XIC of the Act, if there is an effective State or Territory access regime in place, if an access undertaking or access code has been accepted in relation to the facility, if an advance eligibility ruling has been made in relation to new infrastructure or if the facility is covered by an approved tender process. Separate Divisions deal with each of these processes. Declarations also cannot be made with respect to gas pipelines in relation to which there is either a 15-years no-coverage determination under the National Gas Law, or an existing price regulation exemption under that law. [CCA.44G.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that, having considered the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) and an earlier report by the Productivity Commission on the National Access Regime, it would adopt the following recommendations of the Productivity Commission: • criterion (a) to be a comparison of competition with and without access on reasonable terms and conditions through declaration; • criteria (b) to include a “natural monopoly” test rather than a “private profitability” test. The natural monopoly test would be satisfied if total foreseeable market demand (including demand for substitute services) could be met at least cost by the facility; • criterion (e) to include a threshold clause that a service cannot be declared if it is subject to a certified access regime; • criterion (f) to be amended such that it is a positive test that declaration be in the public interest; • the power of the ACCC to order both capacity extensions and geographical expansion be clarified; • a Council recommendation to declare an infrastructure service be deemed accepted by the Minister after 60 days, if the Minister does not publish a decision on the Council’s recommendation;

244

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44G.100]

s 44G

• government‐imposed mandatory access undertakings be reviewed by the National Competition Council (the Council) against the declaration criteria. On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert s 44G(1B) and substitute s 44G(2) as follows: (1B) The Council cannot recommend declaration of a service that is the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB). (2) The Council cannot recommend that a service be declared unless it is satisfied of all of the declaration criteria for the service. Other proposed amendments and additions are set out under relevant sections below. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.44G.60]

Practice and procedure: declaration process

The declaration process is described in the flow-chart at [CCA.44AA.60]. See also National Competition Council, The National Access Regime: A Guide to Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (2002). [CCA.44G.80]

Concept: particular service

The service to which access is to be provided is the particular service to which the applicant has requested access: Rio Tinto Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 6; 246 ALR 1; [2008] ATPR 42-214; Re Services Sydney Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 7; (2005) 227 ALR 140; [2006] ATPR 42-099 at [21]; Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092 at [112]. It is for the NCC, the designated Minister and the Tribunal, on review, to determine what the particular service, for which declaration is sought, is. While they cannot redefine or expand the scope of the “particular service” which is the subject of the application to the Council, they are not required to slavishly follow the words of the application. A “literal or pedantic adherence” to the description of the service is not required, provided that the substance and essential nature of the service is not altered: Rio Tinto Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 6; 246 ALR 1; [2008] ATPR 42-214.

As a first step, it is therefore necessary to identify markets relevant to the access application. It is necessary to define the relevant markets, distinguishing between the market for the service subject to declaration application and any other dependent markets upstream or downstream from it. For the approach to be taken in identifying relevant markets, see [CCA.4E.140]. This can often be a complex matter where the services provided by a significant facility appear to be integrated. In Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754 at 40,77 (ATPR), [97] the Tribunal observed: Though in the past usually vertically integrated, track services and the running of passenger or freight trains can be, and increasingly are, provided separately. As such, they operate in functionally distinct markets, even though there is perfect complementarity between them. To put it another way, these complementarities do not appear to give rise to economies of joint consumption or joint production that dictate the services must be performed within the same economic entity. The evidence presented to the Tribunal suggested similar considerations apply to the services provided by SIA’s physical infrastructure and ramp handling and CTO services. In other words, just because there is a one for one relationship between airport aprons and ramp handling services does not mean that the supply of these two types of services are in functionally the same market.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

245

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[CCA.44G.100] Concept: promote competition Access to a service cannot be declared unless access will promote competition in a market, in Australia or overseas, other than the market for the service. This may be either an upstream or downstream market.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44G

[CCA.44G.100]

A service cannot be declared unless it promotes competition. Competition will be promoted if access creates the conditions or environment for improving competition from what it would be otherwise. If the opportunities and environment for competition if the service is declared will be better than they would be without declaration then competition is promoted: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. The NCC applied, in Re NSW Minerals Council Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005, a three-step approach to determine whether those improvements are likely to be achieved: 1. Assess the current level of competitiveness in the subject market. If the subject market is already competitive, access may not increase competition and provide improvement in terms and conditions sufficient to affect the competitiveness of additional markets. 2. Verify that nominated markets are additional. This involves ensuring that the products affected by access are in additional markets rather than the market to which access is required. 3. Determine whether access benefits are likely to be retained in the terms and conditions of products in additional markets. Benefits are likely to be maintained if the additional markets are competitive but if they are uncontested then the benefits are likely to be absorbed by monopoly power. Also, if the service is insignificant the benefits of access are likely to be insignificant. Part IIIA only requires that access to the relevant service promote competition and while a trivial increase in competition would not satisfy the test, access need not substantially promote competition: Re Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000. In making an assessment about whether or not competition would be enhanced if an access declaration were made the financial capacity of the applicant is not relevant: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. How should tenders be regarded in this context? If the owner of a facility makes services available by tender then should we conclude that competition is not likely to be enhanced by making an access declaration? In Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754 at 40,775 (ATPR), [112] the Tribunal said: In general, economic efficiency is optimised by competition within and across markets that are unhindered by artificial barriers to entry. In the absence of such barriers, competitive equilibrium in terms of price and supply is determined by the size of the market and the technological and other determinants of supply and demand, giving rise to what the language of economics calls “first best outcomes”. … In this matter, however, SACL argued that constraints of space and associated safety issues require a restriction on the number of service providers in the ramp handling and CTO markets, thus rationing access to the market. FAC and then SACL chose to implement this restriction via a tender process involving competition for the market … The economic experts agreed that such an outcome was “second best”, essentially because the information content and incentive structures associated with restricted entry were less rich and compelling than those generated by free market entry. In that case the Tribunal closely examined the tender process and concluded that it was not a substitute for enhancing competition through a declaration. EXAMPLE • Gas pipelines: The Tribunal concluded that coverage of a gas pipeline would not, in the circumstances, enhance competition over an existing voluntary access arrangement offered by the owner of the pipeline: Re Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821. • Airports: The Tribunal decided that access to the use of facilities at Sydney international airport would improve competition in the markets for ramp services and cargo terminal operations at those airports and that they were in different markets: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000]

246

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44G.120]

•

•

•

•

•

•

s 44G

ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. See also Re Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000. Railways: The NCC considered the provision of rail track to be in a different market to that for the provision of freight transport although it acknowledged that access to track was an input to freight transport services: Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004. See also Re NSW Minerals Council Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005. The Tribunal determined that access to below rail services between iron ore mines in Western Australia and export ports (other than Mr Newman) would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market, other than the market for the service: Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319. Gas pipelines: A natural gas pipeline was conceded to be an essential facility because competitive gas producers could not access certain cities without using the pipeline: City of Chanute v Williams Natural Gas Co [1990] 1 Trade Cases 68,967. Rail terminals: Railway companies which controlled access to all terminals at St Louis held essential facilities because, without access to the terminals, competing railroad companies could not operate services to and from the West Coast of the United States: US v Terminal Railroad Assn 224 US 383 (1912). Electricity distribution: A power company that controlled electricity distribution infrastructure in 465 towns in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota was found to be in control of an essential facility because, without access to its infrastructure there could be no competition in supply of electricity to the area: Otter Tail Power Co v US 410 US 366 (1973). Telecommunications: A telephone company’s switched network, required in order to connect with local distribution facilities and offer competing services was found to be an essential facility because without access to it a competitor could not compete in offering telephone services: MCI Communications Corp v AT & T Co (1983) 708 F 2d 1081; [1982-3] Trade Cases 65,137.

[CCA.44G.120]

Concept: uneconomical to duplicate

An access declaration cannot be made unless it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop an alternative facility to provide the service. This is an objective test to be applied in the circumstances of each case. It requires more than that the person seeking access does not have the resources to develop an alternative facility.

The term “uneconomical to duplicate” has three possible meanings. First, it may mean that it would not be profitable for anyone to develop the facility (the “privately profitable” test). Secondly, it may mean that the total net costs (including social costs) exceed the total net benefits (including social benefits) of developing another facility (the “net social benefit” test). Thirdly, it may mean that a single facility can meet market demand at less total cost than two or more facilities (a “natural monopoly test”). In the context of Pt IIIA of the Act, it means the first: The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36. As the High Court said in that case: [77] … [C]riterion (b) is to be read as requiring the decision maker to be satisfied that there is not anyone for whom it would be profitable to develop another facility. It is not to be read as requiring the testing of an abstract hypothesis: if someone, anyone, were to develop another facility. When used in criterion (b) “anyone” should be read as a wholly general reference that requires the decision maker to © 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

247

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Another facility to provide the service is a facility capable of meeting the needs of the particular service in relation to which access is sought, including in the same or similar location: Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44G

[CCA.44G.120]

be satisfied that there is no one, whether in the market or able to enter the market for supplying the relevant service, who would find it economical (in the sense of profitable) to develop another facility to provide that service. ... [104] … It would not be economical, in the sense of profitable, for someone to develop another facility to provide the service in respect of which the making of a declaration is being considered unless that person could reasonably expect to obtain a sufficient return on the capital that would be employed in developing that facility. Deciding the level of that expected return will require close consideration of the market under examination. What is a sufficient rate of return will necessarily vary according to the nature of the facility and the industry concerned. And if there is a person who could develop the alternative facility as part of a larger project it would be necessary to consider the whole project in deciding whether the development of the alternative facility, as part of that larger project, would provide a sufficient rate of return. ... [107] If the Minister is satisfied that it would be uneconomical (in the sense of not profitable) for anyone to develop an alternative facility, criterion (b) is met. On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that, having considered the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) and an earlier report by the Productivity Commission on the National Access Regime, that it would adopt the recommendation that this criterion be amended to include a “natural monopoly” test rather than a “private profitability” test. The natural monopoly test would be satisfied if total foreseeable market demand (including demand for substitute services) could be met at least cost by the facility. An exposure draft of the proposed changes is to be prepared. EXAMPLE Rail lines: In Re Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2 the Tribunal concluded that, as it did not have before it sufficient material to satisfy it that it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop an alternative facility because the Minister applied a test disapproved by the High Court, the Tribunal must set aside the Minister’s declarations because it could not be satisfied that the declarations would not be contrary to the national interest, as required by s 44H(4). Note: in each of the following Tribunal examples the test applied was the “net social benefit” test. Gas pipelines: The Tribunal concluded that it would be uneconomic to duplicate pipeline infrastructure due to the social cost: in Re Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821. Airport terminals: The Tribunal concluded that the relevant facility in relation to an application for declaration of freight handling services was the whole airport and that the airport was uneconomic to duplicate because of the very powerful economies of scale and scope of the airport owner which would preclude anyone, even the incumbent owner and operator, from developing another facility offering the physical infrastructure and the associated “rich inheritance” of market attributes at the airport: Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754. Rail lines: • The Council decided that it would be uneconomical to duplicate rail lines between Sydney and Broken Hill: Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004. See also Re NSW Minerals Council Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005 relating to the Hunter rail line. • The Tribunal determined that it would be uneconomical to duplicate rail infrastructure between iron ore mines in Western Australia and export ports (other than Mr Newman) because that infrastructure was a natural monopoly: Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319 But note Re Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2. Telecommunications: Local telephone distribution facilities, involving millions of miles of cable and line to individual homes and businesses, were determined to be uneconomical to duplicate, partly because

248

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44G.140]

s 44G

regulatory approval would not be forthcoming for such an uneconomical duplication of facilities: MCI Communications Corp v AT & T Co (1983) 708 F 2d 1081; [1982-3] Trade Cases 65,137. Flour mill: The court accepted that the only way for a competitor in the flour and millfeed market in a region of the USA to continue to compete after its mill burned down was to have access to another mill in the region because that was the only economically feasible method of entry to the market: Helix Milling Co v Terminal Flour Mills Co [1975] 2 Trade Cases 60,554. Rail infrastructure: A United States court concluded that access to rail lines between two points in the United States, required by the applicant in order to compete in the market for supply of sand and gravel, was not economic to duplicate, but declined to declare it an essential facility because alternative means of transport were available: Laurel Sand & Gravel Inc v CSX Transportation Inc [1991] 1 Trade Cases 69,312. Gas pipelines: A United States court found that a major gas pipeline system running from the Gulf of Mexico to Michigan was not an essential facility as far as certain communities in Illinois was concerned because it was economically feasible for competitors to duplicate much of the respondent’s pipeline system: State of Illinois v Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co [1991] 1 Trade Cases 69,455. If the NCC decides that it is uneconomical to develop another facility it must also consider whether it would be economical for another facility to be developed to provide part of the service: s 44F(4). [CCA.44G.140]

Concept: national significance

A facility cannot be declared an “essential facility” under s 44H unless the facility is of “national significance” having regard to the size of the facility, its importance to interstate or overseas trade or commerce or its importance to the national economy. This provision was inserted in an attempt to avoid some of the instances in which facilities in the United States have been declared essential facilities, such as convention centres and sports stadiums: see Hart Productions Inc v Greater Cincinnati Convention & Visitors Bureau [1990] 2 Trade Cases 69,233; Hecht v ProFootball, Inc [1977] 2 Trade Cases 61,773. In the European context, Art 86 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits misuse of dominant market power, only applies if the undertaking under investigation has a dominant position in a substantial part of the common market. In Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova SpA v Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5889, the European Court found the port of Genova, Italy to be a substantial part of the common market because “the Port of Genova is amongst the most important in the Community and is the most important in Italy, and … in view of its situation and infrastructure, users of the port often have no other choice than to use the Port”. The Commission reached the same conclusion in relation to the Port of Holyhead in the United Kingdom because that port was the only port then serving passenger and vehicle ferries on the central corridor route between the United Kingdom and Ireland: see B & I Line plc v Sealink Harbours Ltd (1992) 5 CMLR 255.

Airport terminals: The NCC decided that the freight handling facilities at both Sydney and Melbourne international airports were of national significance: Re Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000. The Tribunal confirmed this view with respect to Sydney International Airport: see Re Sydney Airports Corp Ltd [2000] ACompT 1; (2000) 156 FLR 10; [2000] ATPR 41-754.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

249

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

EXAMPLE Computers: The Tribunal decided that the government computer system used to provide AUSTUDY is not of national significance having regard to either its importance to trade or commerce or its size: Re Australian Union of Students (1997) 140 FLR 167; 147 ALR 458; [1997] ATPR 41-573.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44G

[CCA.44G.140]

Rail track: The NCC decided that rail track and associated infrastructure between Sydney and Broken Hill in New South Wales was of national significance: Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004. See, also, Re NSW Minerals Council Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005 relating to the Hunter rail line. Rail track: The Council decided that railway line between Kalgoorlie and Perth was of national significance because it was the only rail route linking Western Australia and the eastern States and the cost of duplicating the lines was estimated at over $1 million per kilometre. The Council decided that facilities such as terminals and shunting locomotives, while not of themselves important because of their size or importance to trade and commerce, were important to the national economy: Re Specialised Container Transport No 2 [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-006. [CCA.44G.160]

Concept: effective access regime

The Minister cannot make an access declaration in relation to a facility if there is already an effective access regime in place in relation to that facility. The main purpose of this provision is to permit State and Territory governments to develop access regimes compliant with the Competition Principles Agreement which can then be accepted by the Federal Treasurer as being an effective access regime. There is a process for this set out at [13.6] in the online edition of this work. An example of a regime which would be an effective access regime if made by a State and approved under s 44N is the natural gas pipeline access regime set out in the Moomba-Sydney Pipeline System Sale Act 1994. EXAMPLE • Re Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000. The NCC rejected a submission that administrative arrangements under legislation which gave the FAC power to grant access to facilities at airports it controlled constituted an effective access regime because access was entirely discretionary. • Re NSW Minerals Council Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-005. The NCC decided that the New South Wales Rail Access Regime, established by the New South Wales government in response to the Competition Principles Agreement, was not an effective regime because it did not meet the requirements of cl 6(4)(a)–(c) of the Agreement: see [13.6] in the online edition of this work. See also Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004. • Re Specialised Container Transport No 2 [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-006. The WA Premier declined to accept a recommendation to declare the rail service between Kalgoorlie and Perth on the basis that there was already an effective regime in place. An application for review was filed with the Tribunal. [CCA.44G.180]

Concept: contrary to the public interest

The NCC cannot recommend that the Minister make a declaration, nor may the Minister make a declaration, unless they are satisfied that access (or increased access) would not be contrary to the public interest. The expression “public interest” imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters. Although the power is “neither arbitrary nor completely unlimited” it is “unconfined except in so far as the subject matter and the scope and purpose of the statutory enactments may enable the court to pronounce given reasons to be definitely extraneous to any objects the legislature could have had in view”: Water Conservation & Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492; [1947] HCA 21 at 505 (CLR). Therefore, the range of matters to which the NCC and the Minister may

250

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44G.180]

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

s 44G

have regard when considering whether access (or increased access) would not be contrary to the public interest is very wide: The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36. Nevertheless, as the Tribunal’s task is limited to reviewing the Minister’s decision, the Tribunal will not lightly depart from a ministerial conclusion about whether access or increased access would not be in the public interest. In particular, if the Minister has not found that access would not be in the public interest, the Tribunal should ordinarily be slow to find to the contrary. Such a finding would not be made, except in the clearest of cases, by reference to some overall balancing of costs and benefits: Re Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2. “Access” in this context means access on such reasonable terms and conditions as may be determined in the second stage of the Pt IIIA of the Act process. This may require the minister and the ACCC to consider the same evidence at each stage in the process, but they will do so from different perspectives: Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58. A determination that access would not be contrary to the public interest necessarily involves some speculation, but nevertheless the consequences that are likely to arise as a result of access should be considered, giving them a weight that has regard to their degree of likelihood: Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319; Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58. Because so many different kinds of consideration may be relevant to an assessment of what is “contrary to the public interest”, social costs could be relevant to that assessment. The significance to be attached to social costs will be affected by the existence of any countervailing social benefits: The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36. The decision maker does not have to conclude, as an additional criterion, that access is in the public interest: Re Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821.

In Re Australian Cargo Terminal Operations Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-000 the NCC considered the following factors: • the relationship between the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) and Pt IIIA of the TPA (now CCA); • the effect of an Expressions of Interest for construction of international freight facilities at Sydney International Airport on competition in the relevant market; • whether declaration would undermine the investment environment necessary for significant competition; • the potential for declaration to interfere with planning processes at both Sydney and Melbourne International Airports; • the effect of bilateral international air services agreements; and • security issues.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

251

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

While economic efficiency is an important element of public interest, the two are not synonymous. In considering whether access would be contrary to the public interest in Re Specialised Container Transport [1997] ATPR (NCC) 70-004, the Council decided that the NCC should consider the following factors: • ecologically sustainable development; • social welfare and equity considerations; • transitional issues created by reform programs; • policies concerning occupational health and safety and industrial relations; • economic and regional development, including employment and investment growth; • the interests of consumers generally, or a class of consumers; • the competitiveness of Australian businesses.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44GA

[CCA.44G.180]

EXAMPLE • Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] ACompT 2; (2010) 242 FLR 136; 271 ALR 256; [2010] ATPR 42-319. In determining whether it was in the public interest to declare rail lines between iron ore mines in Western Australia and export ports, the Tribunal weighed up the benefits and costs of access to society, going forward. The Tribunal found there were certain key benefits in savings from sharing the existing railways rather than duplicating them and making rail services available for some mining projects. On the negative side the Tribunal found that there were significant costs that would result from access on some lines, including severe logistical and commercial constraints imposed on third parties to ensure there was no interference with the owners’ highly flexible business models. Also, access would delay the owners’ future expansions plans or changes in operating practices or technology, with a consequent loss of billions of dollars in export revenues. The Tribunal assessed the public interest on a line-by-line basis. • Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092. The Tribunal decided that it would not be contrary to the public interest to declare airside services at Sydney Airport because increased access to those services would promote competition and any costs of regulation arising from declaration were not of such weight that increased access to the service would be contrary to the public interest. • Re Australian Union of Students (1997) 140 FLR 167; 147 ALR 458; [1997] ATPR 41-573. The Tribunal decided that access to the services of a government computer system used to provide AUSTUDY would be contrary to the national interest because “what the applicant seeks is improperly to use, in furtherance of its own objectives, the coercive powers of the Commonwealth to gain access to the AUSTUDY database”.

[CCA.44G.200]

Time limit

The NCC must make its decision on whether or not to recommend declaration within 180 days of the date on which the application for declaration is received, although are provisions that allow the NCC to stop the clock, either by agreement with the applicant and provider, or to extend time: s 44GA(5) and (7). [CCA.44G.220] Cases • Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092. The Tribunal declared airside services at Sydney Airport. The decision was upheld by the Federal Court: Sydney Airport Corp Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 146; 155 FCR 124; 232 ALR 454; [2007] ATPR 42-142. • Re Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821. The Tribunal decided that coverage of the eastern gas pipeline would not promote competition in another market and accordingly decided that the pipeline should not be “covered” under the Gas Code. • Re Queensland Gas Pipelines [2001] ATPR (NCC) 70-008. The Council recommended revocation of coverage of the pipeline because the Council was not satisfied that regulated access would promote competition in another market or confer net public interest benefits. 44GA

Time limit for Council recommendations

Council to make recommendation within the consideration period (1) The Council must make a recommendation on an application under section 44F within the consideration period.

252

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

s 44GA

(2) [Meaning of consideration period] The consideration period is a period of 180 days (the expected period), starting at the start of the day the application is received, unless the consideration period is extended under subsection (7). Stopping the clock (3) In working out the expected period in relation to a recommendation on an application under section 44F, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item. Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Column 2 Situation Start day 1 An agreement is made in rela- The first day of the period tion to the application under specified in the agreement subsection (5) 2 A notice is given under sub- The day on which the notice section 44FA(1) requesting is given information in relation to the application (4) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (3): (a) do not disregard any day more than once; and (b) the total period that is disregarded under that subsection must

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement The last day of the period specified in the notice for the giving of the information

not exceed 60 days.

Council may extend time for making recommendation (7) If the Council is unable to make a recommendation within the consideration period (whether it is the expected period or the consideration period as previously extended under this subsection), it must, by notice in writing to the designated Minister, extend the consideration period by a specified period. (8) [Details of notice] The notice must: (a) specify when the Council must now make a recommendation on the application; and (b) include a statement explaining why the Council has been unable to make a decision on the recommendation within the consideration period. (9) [Copies of notice] The Council must give a copy of the notice to: (a) the applicant; and (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider. Publication (10) If the Council extends the consideration period under subsection (7), it must publish a notice in a national newspaper:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

253

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Stopping the clock by agreement (5) The Council, the applicant and the provider of the service (if the provider is not the applicant) may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (6) [Publication of agreement] The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44GA

[CCA.44GA.20]

(a) (b)

stating that it has done so; and specifying the day by which it must now make a recommendation on the application.

Failure to comply with time limit does not affect validity (11) Failure by the Council to comply with a time limit set in this section does not affect the validity of a recommendation made under this section. [S 44GA subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 18]

SECTION 44GA COMMENTARY [CCA.44GA.20]

Outline

This provision is intended to speed up the process of decision-making by requiring the NCC to make decisions on whether or not to recommend and access application within 4 months of the application being made. Where the period is extended the NCC must publish a notice that it has done so. 44GB

Council may invite public submissions on the application

Invitation (1) The Council may publish, by electronic or other means, a notice inviting public submissions on an application under section 44F if it considers that it is appropriate and practicable to do so. (2) [Details of notice inviting submissions] The notice must specify how submissions may be made and the day by which submissions may be made (which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice is published). Consideration of submissions (3) Subject to subsection (6), in deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any submission made on or before the day specified in the notice; and (b) may disregard any submission made after the day specified in the notice. [Subs (3) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6]

Council may make submissions publicly available (4) The Council may make any written submission, or a written record (which may be a summary) of any oral submission, publicly available. Confidentiality (5) A person may, at the time of making a submission, request that the Council: (a) not make the whole or a part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (b) not publish or make available the whole or a part of the submission under section 44GC; because of the confidential commercial information contained in the submission. (6) [Refusal of confidentiality request] If the Council refuses such a request: (a) for a written submission—the Council must, if the person who made it so requires, return the whole or the part of it to the person; and (b) for an oral submission—the person who made it may inform the Council that the person withdraws the whole or the part of it; and

254

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44GB.20] (c)

s 44GC

if the Council returns the whole or the part of the submission, or the person withdraws the whole or the part of the submission, the Council must not: (i) make the whole or the part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (ii) publish or make available the whole or the part of the submission under section 44GC; and (iii) have regard to the whole or the part of the submission in making its recommendation on the application.

[S 44GB am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 18]

SECTION 44GB COMMENTARY [CCA.44GB.20]

Outline

This provision, inserted in 2006, has the effect of codifying existing NCC practice in relation to inviting and considering third party submissions on access applications, thereby making the process more transparent. 44GC

Council must publish its recommendation

(1) [Publication of s 44F recommendations] The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, a recommendation under section 44F and its reasons for the recommendation. (2) [Copies] The Council must give a copy of the publication to: (a) the applicant under section 44F; and (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider. Timing (3) The Council must do the things under subsections (1) and (2) on the day the designated Minister publishes his or her decision on the recommendation or as soon as practicable after that day. Consultation

(5) [Council to consider any submission] The Council must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [S 44GC insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 18]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

255

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(4) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Council may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the applicant under section 44F; (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider; (c) any other person the Council considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (d) specifying what the Council is proposing to publish; and (e) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Council within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44H

[CCA.44GC.20]

SECTION 44GC COMMENTARY [CCA.44GC.20]

Outline

This provision, inserted in 2006, is intended to make decision-making on access applications more transparent by codifying the NCC’s practice of publishing its recommendations on access applications and the reasons for them, subject to any relevant confidentiality considerations.

SUBDIVISION B – DECLARATION BY THE DESIGNATED MINISTER 44H

Designated Minister may declare a service

(1) [Minister must make a decision] On receiving a declaration recommendation, the designated Minister must either declare the service or decide not to declare it. Note: The designated Minister must publish his or her decision: see section 44HA. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

(1A) [Minister to consider objects of Part] The designated Minister must have regard to the objects of this Part in making his or her decision. [Subs (1A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 20]

(2) [Economic considerations] In deciding whether to declare the service or not, the designated Minister must consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service. This subsection does not limit the grounds on which the designated Minister may make a decision whether to declare the service or not. (3) [Access undertaking precludes recommendation] The designated Minister cannot declare a service that is the subject of an access undertaking in operation under Division 6. [Subs (3) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 21]

(3A) [Tender process: where Minister cannot recommend declaration] While a decision of the Commission is in force under subsection 44PA(3) approving a tender process, for the construction and operation of a facility, as a competitive tender process, the designated Minister cannot declare any service provided by means of the facility that was specified under paragraph 44PA(2)(a). [Subs (3A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 22]

(4) [Pre-conditions for declaration] The designated Minister cannot declare a service unless he or she is satisfied of all of the following matters: (a) that access (or increased access) to the service would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market (whether or not in Australia), other than the market for the service; (b) that it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service; (c) that the facility is of national significance, having regard to: (i) the size of the facility; or (ii) the importance of the facility to constitutional trade or commerce; or (iii) the importance of the facility to the national economy; (d) [Repealed]

256

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services (e)

(f)

s 44H

that access to the service: (i) is not already the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB); or (ii) is the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB), but the designated Minister believes that, since the Commonwealth Minister’s decision was published, there have been substantial modifications of the access regime or of the relevant principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; that access (or increased access) to the service would not be contrary to the public interest.

[Subs (4) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 items 8 and 9; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 23]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 10; am Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998]

(6) [Repealed] [Subs (6) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 10]

(6A) [Repealed] [Subs (6A) rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 10; subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(6B) [Service cannot be declared: pipeline] The designated Minister cannot declare a service provided by means of a pipeline (within the meaning of a National Gas Law) if: (a) a 15-year no-coverage determination is in force under the National Gas Law in respect of the pipeline; or (b) a price regulation exemption is in force under the National Gas Law in respect of the pipeline. [Subs (6B) subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(6C) [Service cannot be declared: other decision in force] The designated Minister cannot declare a service if there is in force a decision of the designated Minister under section 44LG that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. [Subs (6C) reinsrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 6; rep Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(7) [Repealed] [Subs (7) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 25]

(8) [Expiry date] If the designated Minister declares the service, the declaration must specify the expiry date of the declaration.

[Subs (9) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 26] [S 44H am Act 102 of 2010; Act 45 of 2007; Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

257

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(9) [Publication of decision] If the designated Minister does not publish under section 44HA his or her decision on the declaration recommendation within 60 days after receiving the declaration recommendation, the designated Minister is taken, at the end of that 60-day period, to have decided not to declare the service and to have published that decision not to declare the service.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44H

[CCA.44H.20]

SECTION 44H COMMENTARY Summary ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44H.20] Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................... [CCA.44H.40] Declarations – matters to be taken into account .......................................................................... [CCA.44H.60] Whether denial of access a precondition ...................................................................................... [CCA.44H.80] Definitions: access ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.44H.100] Setting aside Minister’s decision ................................................................................................. [CCA.44H.120]

[CCA.44H.20]

Summary

This provision empowers the relevant Minister to make an access declaration if the tests set out in the section are met. However, the Minister cannot proceed without a recommendation from the NCC. This means that all declarations must be filtered through the NCC process. The six criteria that need to be satisfied before the Minister can declare a service to be open to access by third parties are set out at [CCA.44H.60]. In addition, the Minister must consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service, but the Minister can take other factors into account. [CCA.44H.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to repeal s 44H(2), insert s 44H(3B) and substitute s 44H(4) and amend s 44H(9) as follows: (3B) The designated Minister cannot declare a service that is the subject of a regime in relation to which a decision under section 44N that the regime is an effective access regime is in force (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB). (4) The designated Minister cannot declare a service unless he or she is satisfied of all of the declaration criteria for the service. (9) Omit all the words after “at the end of that”, substitute: 60-day period: (a) to have made a decision under this section in accordance with the declaration recommendation; and (b) to have published that decision under section 44HA. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.44H.60]

Declarations – matters to be taken into account

In deciding whether or not to declare a service, the Minister must: • have regard to the objects of Pt IIIA, which include the object of promoting the economically efficient operation of, use of and investment in the relevant infrastructure, thereby promoting competition in upstream and downstream markets, and the object of encouraging a consistent approach to access regulation: ss 44H(1A); 44AA; and • consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service: s 44H(2). There are pre-conditions for declaration. The Minister cannot declare a service unless satisfied of each of the following 5 matters: • access (or increased access) to the service would promote a material increase in competition in at least one market (whether or not in Australia), other than the market for the service: see [CCA.44G.100]; • it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service: see [CCA.44G.120];

258

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44H.120]

s 44HA

• the facility is of national significance, having regard to the size of the facility or the importance of the facility to trade or commerce to the national economy: see [CCA.44G.140]; • access to the service is not already the subject of an effective access regime: see [CCA.44G.160]; and • access (or increased access) to the service would not be contrary to the public interest: see [CCA.44G.180]. As the factors in s 44H(4) are exhaustive, the Minister has no residual discretion. If the criteria are all satisfied the Minister must declare the relevant service: The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36. [CCA.44H.80]

Whether denial of access a precondition

Section 44H(4)(a) is not to be interpreted as requiring, as a precondition to the Minister making a declaration, that the service provider has in the past denied or restricted access to the service or supply of the service: Sydney Airport Corp Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 146; 155 FCR 124; 232 ALR 454; [2007] ATPR 42-142. [CCA.44H.100]

Definitions: access

Section 44H(4)(a) refers to access or increased access. In doing so the provision uses the term “access” in its ordinary English sense. All s 44H(4)(a) requires is a comparison of the future state of competition in the dependent market with a right or ability to use service and the future state of competition in the dependent market without any right or ability or with a restricted right or ability to use the service: Sydney Airport Corp Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 146; 155 FCR 124; 232 ALR 454; [2007] ATPR 42-142. [CCA.44H.120]

Setting aside Minister’s decision

Where an application for review of a Minister’s decision is made to the Tribunal and none of the parties present evidence, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry of its own, calling on the NCC to provide information under s 44K(6). In those circumstances the appropriate course for the Tribunal is to set aside the Minister’s decision because it is not able to be satisfied of the matters necessary to affirm the decision: Re Asia Pacific Transport Pty Ltd [2003] ACompT 1; [2003] ATPR 41-920. 44HA

Designated Minister must publish his or her decision

(1) [Minister must publish decision and reasons] The designated Minister must publish, by electronic or other means, his or her decision on a declaration recommendation and his or her reasons for the decision. (2) [Copies] The designated Minister must give a copy of the publication to: (a) the applicant under section 44F; and (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider.

(3) Before publishing under subsection (1), the designated Minister may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the applicant under section 44F; (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider; (c) any other person the designated Minister considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (d) specifying what the designated Minister is proposing to publish; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

259

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Consultation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44HA (e)

[CCA.44I.20] inviting the person to make a written submission to the designated Minister within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature.

(4) [Minister to consider any submission] The designated Minister must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. He or she may have regard to any other matter he or she considers relevant. [S 44HA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 27]

44I

Duration and effect of declaration

(1) [Beginning of declaration] Subject to this section, a declaration begins to operate at a time specified in the declaration. The time cannot be earlier than 21 days after the declaration is published. (2) [Application for review] If: (a)

an application for review of a declaration is made within 21 days after the day the declaration is published; and (b) the Tribunal makes an order under section 44KA staying the operation of the declaration; the declaration does not begin to operate until the order is no longer of effect under subsection 44KA(6) or the Tribunal makes a decision on the review to affirm the declaration, whichever is the earlier. [Subs (2) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 11]

(3) [Expiry date] A declaration continues in operation until its expiry date, unless it is earlier revoked. (4) [Arbitration before expiration unaffected] The expiry or revocation of a declaration does not affect: (a) the arbitration of an access dispute that was notified before the expiry or revocation; or (b) the operation or enforcement of any determination made in the arbitration of an access dispute that was notified before the expiry or revocation. [S 44I am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44I COMMENTARY [CCA.44I.20]

Outline

This section is a machinery provision which states that a declaration made by a Minister under s 44H comes into effect at the time specified in the declaration, but that time must be at least 21 days after the declaration is published. The reason for this is that any person dissatisfied with the Minister’s decision can apply to the Australian Competition Tribunal to have the decision reconsidered. If an application is made to the Tribunal the declaration does not come into effect on the date specified by the Minister. It awaits the outcome of the Tribunal’s reconsideration. The second machinery aspect of this section is that it deals with the expiry of declarations. Declarations may be permanent or they may be made for a specified period. In the latter case, the declaration continues until the expiry date (unless revoked earlier) but expiry does not affect any arbitration on foot before that date.

260

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44J.20]

44J

s 44J

Revocation of declaration

(1) [Recommendation to revoke declaration] The Council may recommend to the designated Minister that a declaration be revoked. The Council must have regard to the objects of this Part in making its decision. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 28]

(2) [Where Council cannot recommend revocation] The Council cannot recommend revocation of a declaration unless it is satisfied that, at the time of the recommendation, subsection 44H(4) would prevent the designated Minister from declaring the service concerned. (3) [Minister must make decision] On receiving a revocation recommendation, the designated Minister must either revoke the declaration or decide not to revoke the declaration. [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 29]

(3A) [Minister to consider objects of Part] The designated Minister must have regard to the objects of this Part in making his or her decision. [Subs (3A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 30]

(4) [Publication of decision] The designated Minister must publish the decision to revoke or not to revoke. (5) [No revocation: reasons for decision] If the designated Minister decides not to revoke, the designated Minister must give reasons for the decision to the provider of the declared service when the designated Minister publishes the decision. (6) [Recommendation required for revocation] The designated Minister cannot revoke a declaration without receiving a revocation recommendation. (7) [Minister deemed to have made decision to revoke declaration] If the designated Minister does not publish under subsection (4) his or her decision on the revocation recommendation within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day, the designated Minister is taken, immediately after the end of that 60-day period: (a) to have made a decision that the declaration be revoked; and (b) to have published that decision in accordance with this section. [Subs (7) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9] [S 44J am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: s 44JA Trade Practices Act 1974 (at 13 April 2010, pre-reform).]

SECTION 44J COMMENTARY Summary

This section entitles the NCC to recommend to the Minister that a declaration be revoked. The NCC can only recommend revocation if it is satisfied that, at the time it is considering its recommendation, the tests for making a declaration would not be satisfied. Those tests are: • Access must promote a material increase in competition in another market. That market does not have to be in Australia. • It must be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility. • The facility to which access is required must be of national significance.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

261

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[CCA.44J.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44JA

[CCA.44J.20]

• There must not be an existing effective access regime in relation to the facility. • Access must not be contrary to the national interest. In making its recommendation, the NCC must have regard to the object of promoting effective competition in upstream and downstream markets by promoting economically efficient operation and use of, and investment in, infrastructure. The section also sets out the process if the NCC makes a revocation recommendation. The Minister must consider the matter, decide whether or not to accept the recommendation and publish that decision. The Minister cannot make a revocation decision unless the Minister has a recommendation from the NCC. This means that all revocations must be filtered through the NCC process. The Minister must make his or her decision within 60 days, failing which the recommendation of the NCC is the decision. If the Minister decides not to revoke a declaration the provider of the affected service can apply to the Australian Competition Tribunal to have the decision reviewed. 44JA

Target time limits on designated Minister’s revocation decision [Repealed]

[S 44JA rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 31]

History of the TPA/ACL For current provision (post ACL reform) see s 44J(7). 44K

Review of declaration

(1) [Review of declaration] If the designated Minister declares a service, the provider may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the declaration. (2) [Review of decision] If the designated Minister decides not to declare a service, an application in writing for review of the designated Minister’s decision may be made by the person who applied for the declaration recommendation. (3) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the designated Minister’s decision. (4) [Review is a re-consideration] The review by the Tribunal is a re-consideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (4) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 11 and 12; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 32]

(5) [Tribunal has same powers as Minister] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the designated Minister. (6) [Member can request Council assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Council to give assistance for the purposes of the review (including for the purposes of deciding whether to make an order under section 44KA). [Subs (6) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 12; subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

262

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

[CCA.44K.20]

s 44K

(6A) [Member may require Council to give information] Without limiting subsection (6), the member may, by written notice, require the Council to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (6A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

(6B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the provider of the service; and (iii) the person who applied for the declaration recommendation; and (iv) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. [Subs (6B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

(7) [Tribunal may alter declaration] If the designated Minister declared the service, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the declaration. (8) [Decision not to declare service] If the designated Minister decided not to declare the service, the Tribunal may either: (a) affirm the designated Minister’s decision; or (b) set aside the designated Minister’s decision and declare the service in question. (9) [Declaration taken to be by designated Minister] A declaration, or varied declaration, made by the Tribunal is to be taken to be a declaration by the designated Minister for all purposes of this Part (except this section). [S 44K am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 20A(1)(a) and (b) provides that applications to the Australian Competition Tribunal under s 44K(1) for review of a declaration of a service, or under s 44K(2) for a review a decision of the ACCC not to declare a service, must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form JA; and • reg 22B(1) and (2) enables the applicant to participate in a s 44K review.]

SECTION 44K COMMENTARY Summary ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44K.20] Review criteria ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.44K.40] Admitting additional evidence ........................................................................................................ [CCA.44K.60] Tribunal procedures ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.44K.80] Status of NCC recommendations ................................................................................................ [CCA.44K.100] Application by Minister to intervene ............................................................................................ [CCA.44K.120] Tribunal decisions ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.44K.160]

[CCA.44K.20]

Summary

Access seekers and infrastructure owners may seek re-consideration by the Tribunal of the Minister’s decision.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

263

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Application to stay proceedings .................................................................................................. [CCA.44K.140]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44K [CCA.44K.40]

[CCA.44K.40] Review criteria

In re-considering the Minister’s decision the tribunal takes account of the same criteria as the Minister: see [CCA.44H.20]. One of the criteria is whether access would be contrary to the public interest. When the tribunal reviews a ministerial decision to make a declaration, the tribunal should not lightly depart from a ministerial conclusion about whether access or increased access would not be in the public interest. If the Minister has not found that access would not be in the public interest, the tribunal should ordinarily be slow to find to the contrary and should not make such a finding except in the clearest of cases, by reference to some overall balancing of costs and benefits: The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36. [CCA.44K.60]

Admitting additional evidence

As the Tribunal’s role is limited to reviewing the Minister’s decisions and his reasons for them, the Tribunal will decide whether it should require the NCC to provide further information or assistance, but only for the purposes of understanding and assessing the decision the Minister made: Re Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2. Whether or not, and in what circumstances, the Tribunal is entitled to accept further evidence from the parties has not been finally determined, but in Re Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (2013) 274 FLR 346; [2013] ACompT 2, the Tribunal refused to allow the parties to adduce further evidence. [CCA.44K.80]

Tribunal procedures

The procedures to be adopted by the Tribunal in dealing with applications are those set out in s 44ZZBF: s 44ZQ. The procedural provisions (ss 103–110) in Div 2 of Pt IX do not apply. [CCA.44K.100]

Status of NCC recommendations

The Tribunal’s review of the Minister’s decision is a reconsideration based on the information and reports, not the NCC recommendation. By analogy applying decisions in relation to the Tribunal’s consideration of other decisions: • it will seldom be profitable for the Tribunal to analyse the Minister’s or NCC’s reasons and indicate those it accepts and those it rejects. The main value of those reasons is to alert the Tribunal, at the commencement hearing, to the issues likely to be raised before it: see Re Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012. • the findings or conclusions which the NCC has made or expressed in its published reasons are not, in themselves, ordinarily of probative value on the hearing by the Tribunal of an application for review: see Re Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1978) 17 ALR 281; [1978] ATPR 40-058. [CCA.44K.120]

Application by Minister to intervene

Drawing on decisions of the Tribunal in relation to other reviews, the Minister whose decision is under review does not have an automatic right to intervene in a re-consideration by the Tribunal. The party affected by the decision, or a revocation of it by the Tribunal, is the natural contradictor and its presence relieves the decision making Minister from a need to intervene. However, leave to intervene may be granted in appropriate circumstances: see Re Services Sydney Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 7; (2005) 227 ALR 140; [2006] ATPR 42-099. [CCA.44K.140]

Application to stay proceedings

An application for review does not affect the operation of the declaration under review, nor does it prevent steps being taken relying on the declaration, such as for arbitration: s 44KA(1). However, the Tribunal has power to order a stay: s 44KA(2).

264

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44K.160]

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

s 44KA

In Re Freight Victoria Ltd [2002] ACompT 1; [2002] ATPR 41-884, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision not to declare certain rail services. Victoria sought, unsuccessfully, a stay of the Tribunal’s hearing while it proceeded, under s 44M, to seek to have a rail access regime it was developing declared effective. [CCA.44K.160] Tribunal decisions • Re Lakes R Us Pty Ltd [2006] ACompT 3; (2006) 200 FLR 233; [2006] ATPR 42-114. The Tribunal granted leave to the applicant, who had sought declaration of water storage and transport services provided by Snowy Hydro Ltd and the State Water Corporation, to withdraw its application for review. • Re Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2005] ACompT 5; (2005) 195 FLR 242; [2006] ATPR 42-092. The Tribunal decided to set aside a determination by the Minister in relation to Sydney Airport and to declare the services at the airport for the use of runways, taxiways, parking aprons and other associated facilities necessary to allow aircraft carrying domestic passengers to: take off and land using the runways at Sydney Airport; and move between the runways and the passenger terminals at the airport. 44KA

Tribunal may stay operation of declaration

(1) [Effect of application of review of s 44K(1) declaration] Subject to this section, an application for review of a declaration under subsection 44K(1) does not: (a) affect the operation of the declaration; or (b) prevent the taking of steps in reliance on the declaration.

(3) [Council must be afforded reasonable opportunity to make a submission] Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal must not: (a) make an order under subsection (2) unless the Council has been given a reasonable opportunity to make a submission to the Tribunal in relation to the matter; or (b) make an order varying or revoking an order in force under paragraph (2)(a) (including an order that has previously been varied on one or more occasions under paragraph (2)(b)) unless: (i) the Council; and (ii) the person who requested the making of the order under paragraph (2)(a); and (iii) if the order under paragraph (2)(a) has previously been varied by an order or orders under paragraph (2)(b)—the person or persons who requested the making of the last-mentioned order or orders; have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Tribunal in relation to the matter.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

265

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(2) [Tribunal may vary, revoke or stay order] On application by a person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review of a declaration, the Tribunal may: (a) make an order staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or the taking of steps in reliance on, the declaration if the Tribunal considers that: (i) it is desirable to make the order after taking into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review; and (ii) the order is appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review; or (b) make an order varying or revoking an order made under paragraph (a) (including an order that has previously been varied on one or more occasions under this paragraph).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44KA (4) [Exception to s 44KA(3)] Subsection (3) does not prohibit the Tribunal from making an order without giving to a person referred to in that subsection a reasonable opportunity to make a submission to the Tribunal in relation to a matter if the Tribunal is satisfied that, by reason of the urgency of the case or otherwise, it is not practicable to give that person such an opportunity. (5) [Timing of order] If an order is made under subsection (3) without giving the Council a reasonable opportunity to make a submission to the Tribunal in relation to a matter, the order does not come into operation until a notice setting out the terms of the order is given to the Council. (6) [Period of effect of order] An order in force under paragraph (2)(a) (including an order that has previously been varied on one or more occasions under paragraph (2)(b)): (a) is subject to such conditions as are specified in the order; and (b) has effect until: (i) if a period for the operation of the order is specified in the order—the expiration of that period or, if the application for review is decided by the Tribunal before the expiration of that period, the decision of the Tribunal on the application for review comes into operation; or (ii) if no period is so specified—the decision of the Tribunal on the application for review comes into operation. [S 44KA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 13]

44KB

Tribunal may order costs be awarded

(1) [Costs order] If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, the Tribunal may order that a person who has been made a party to proceedings for a review of a declaration under section 44K pay all or a specified part of the costs of another person who has been made a party to the proceedings. (2) [Costs order against Minister only in certain circumstances] However, the Tribunal must not make an order requiring the designated Minister to pay some or all of the costs of another party to proceedings unless the Tribunal considers that the designated Minister’s conduct in the proceedings was engaged in without due regard to: (a) the costs that would be incurred by the other party to the proceedings as a result of that conduct; or (b) the time required by the Tribunal to make a decision on the review as a result of that conduct; or (c) the time required by the other party to prepare their case for the purposes of the review as a result of that conduct; or (d) the submissions or arguments made during the proceedings to the Tribunal by the other party or parties to the proceedings or by the Council. (3) [Costs assessment or taxation order] If the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), it may make further orders that it considers appropriate in relation to the assessment or taxation of the costs. (4) [Regulations may prescribe matters relating to fees] The regulations may make provision for and in relation to fees payable for the assessment or taxation of costs ordered by the Tribunal to be paid.

266

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2 – Declared services

s 44L

(5) [Debt due by first party] If a party (the first party) is ordered to pay some or all of the costs of another party under subsection (1), the amount of the costs may be recovered in the Federal Court as a debt due by the first party to the other party. [S 44KB insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 13]

44L

Review of decision not to revoke a declaration

(1) [Review of decision] If the designated Minister decides not to revoke a declaration, the provider may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the designated Minister’s decision. (3) [Review is a re-consideration] The review by the Tribunal is a re-consideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 14 and 15; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 33]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Minister] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the designated Minister. (5) [Member can request Council assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Council to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 16]

(5A) [Member may require Council to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Council to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 16]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (6) [Decision may be affirmed or revoked] The Tribunal may either: (a) affirm the designated Minister’s decision; or (b) set aside the designated Minister’s decision and revoke the declaration. [S 44L am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 20A(1)(c) provides that an application to the Australian Competition Tribunal under s 44L(1) for review of a decision of the ACCC not to revoke a declaration of a service must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form JA; and reg 22B(3) enables the applicant to participate in a s 44L review.]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

267

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 16]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44L$

DIVISION 2AA – SERVICES THAT ARE INELIGIBLE TO BE DECLARED [Div 2AA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION A – SCOPE OF DIVISION 44LA

Constitutional limits on operation of this Division

This Division does not apply in relation to a service unless: (a) the person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service is a corporation (or a partnership or joint venture consisting wholly of corporations); or (b) access to the service is (or would be) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce. [S 44LA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION B – INELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION BY COUNCIL 44LB

Ineligibility recommendation

Person may request recommendation (1) A person with a material interest in a particular service proposed to be provided by means of a proposed facility may make a written application to the Council asking the Council to recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. Note: The application must be made before construction of the facility commences: see the definition of proposed facility in section 44B.

Council must make recommendation (2) After receiving the application, the Council must, after having regard to the objects of this Part: (a) recommend to the designated Minister: (i) that he or she decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service; and (ii) the period for which the decision should be in force (which must be at least 20 years); or (b) recommend to the designated Minister that he or she decide that the service is not ineligible to be a declared service. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Council’s recommendation: see section 44LD. Note 2: The Council may request information and invite public submissions on the application: see sections 44LC and 44LE.

Note 3: The Council must publish its recommendation: see section 44LF. Limits on recommendation (3) The Council cannot recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service unless it is satisfied of both of the following matters: (a) that the service will be provided by means of the proposed facility when constructed; (b) that it is not satisfied of at least one of the matters referred to in subsection 44G(2) in relation to the service to be provided by means of the proposed facility. (4) [Recommendation on basis application not made in good faith] If the applicant is a person other than the designated Minister, the Council may recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is not ineligible to be a declared service if the Council thinks that the application was not made in good faith. This subsection does not limit the grounds on which the Council may decide to recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is not ineligible to be a declared service.

268

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44LB.20]

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2AA – Services that are ineligible to be declared

s 44LC

Relationship between ineligibility recommendations, access undertakings and competitive tender processes (5) The Council may recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service even if the service is the subject of an access undertaking in operation under Division 6. (6) [Council may recommend despite s 44PA(3) decision being in force] The Council may recommend that the designated Minister decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service even if: (a) the service is proposed to be provided by means of a facility specified under paragraph 44PA(2)(a); and (b) a decision of the Commission is in force under subsection 44PA(3) approving a tender process, for the construction and operation of the facility, as a competitive tender process. Applicant may withdraw application (7) The applicant may withdraw the application at any time before the Council makes a recommendation relating to it. [S 44LB insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SECTION 44LB COMMENTARY [CCA.44LB.20]

Summary

This section provides for the NCC to provide advance rulings for proposed new infrastructure. Where a person has “a material interest in a particular service”, they may apply to the NCC to recommend to the relevant Minister that the service is ineligible for declaration. Infrastructure proponents can, through this process, obtain certainty before committing to construct the infrastructure. However, an ineligibility decision can only be made by the Minister if the NCC advises that the facility will not be eligible for declaration because, when constructed, the services it provides will not meet all of the criteria for declaration. An ineligibility decision can be in force for as long as the Minister determines, but it must be in force for at least 20 years. Anyone whose interests are affected by a decision may seek a review by the Tribunal: s 44LJ. 44LC

Council may request information

(2) [Copies of notice] The Council must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) if the person is not the applicant—the applicant; and (ii) if the person is not the provider, or the person who expects to be the provider—that person; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (3) [Council to consider information given in compliance with notice] In deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

269

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(1) [Request via written notice] The Council may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Council, within a specified period, information of a kind specified in the notice that the Council considers may be relevant to deciding what recommendation to make on an application under section 44LB.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44LC (a) (b)

must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended.

[S 44LC insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

44LD

Time limit for Council recommendations

Council to make recommendation within the consideration period (1) The Council must make a recommendation on an application under section 44LB within the consideration period. (2) [Meaning of expected period] The consideration period is a period of 180 days (the expected period), starting at the start of the day the application is received, unless the consideration period is extended under subsection (7). Stopping the clock (3) In working out the expected period in relation to a recommendation on an application under section 44LB, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item. Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Column 2 Situation Start day 1 An agreement is made in rela- The first day of the period tion to the application under specified in the agreement subsection (5) 2 A notice is given under sub- The day on which the notice section 44LC(1) requesting is given information in relation to the application (4) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (3): (a) do not disregard any day more than once; and (b) the total period that is disregarded under that subsection must

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement The last day of the period specified in the notice for the giving of the information

not exceed 60 days.

Stopping the clock by agreement (5) The Council and the applicant may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (6) [Publication of agreement] The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement. Extension of time for making decision (7) If the Council is unable to make a recommendation within the consideration period (whether it is the expected period or it has been previously extended under this subsection), it must, by notice in writing to the designated Minister, extend the consideration period by a specified period. (8) [Details of notice] The notice must: (a) specify when the Council must now make a recommendation on the application; and

270

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2AA – Services that are ineligible to be declared (b)

s 44LE

include a statement explaining why the Council has been unable to make a decision on the recommendation within the consideration period.

(9) [Copies of notice] The Council must give a copy of the notice to: (a) the applicant; and (b) if the applicant is not the person who is, or expects to be, the provider—that person. Publication (10) If the Council extends the consideration period under subsection (7), it must publish a notice in a national newspaper: (a) stating that it has done so; and (b) specifying the day by which it must now make a recommendation on the application. Failure to comply with time limit does not affect validity (11) Failure by the Council to comply with a time limit set in this section does not affect the validity of a recommendation made under this section. [S 44LD insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

44LE

Council may invite public submissions on the application

Invitation (1) The Council may publish, by electronic or other means, a notice inviting public submissions on an application under section 44LB if it considers that it is appropriate and practicable to do so. (2) [Details of notice] The notice must specify how submissions may be made and the day by which submissions may be made (which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice is published). Consideration of submissions (3) Subject to subsection (6), in deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any submission made on or before the day specified in the notice; and (b) may disregard any submission made after the day specified in the notice.

Confidentiality (5) A person may, at the time of making a submission, request that the Council: (a) not make the whole or a part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (b) not publish or make available the whole or a part of the submission under section 44LF; because of the confidential commercial information contained in the submission. (6) [Council must return all or part of confidential submission] If the Council refuses such a request: (a) for a written submission—the Council must, if the person who made it so requires, return the whole or the part of it to the person; and (b) for an oral submission—the person who made it may inform the Council that the person withdraws the whole or the part of it; and (c) if the Council returns the whole or the part of the submission, or the person withdraws the whole or the part of the submission, the Council must not:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

271

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Council may make submissions publicly available (4) The Council may make any written submission, or a written record (which may be a summary) of any oral submission, publicly available.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44LE (i) (ii)

make the whole or the part of the submission available under subsection (4); and publish or make available the whole or the part of the submission under section 44LF; and (iii) have regard to the whole or the part of the submission in making its recommendation on the application. [S 44LE insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

44LF

Council must publish its recommendation

Council must publish its recommendation (1) The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, a recommendation under section 44LB and its reasons for the recommendation. (2) [Copies of publication] The Council must give a copy of the publication to: (a) the person who made the application under section 44LB; and (b) if the applicant is not the person who is, or expects to be, the provider—that person. Timing (3) The Council must do the things under subsections (1) and (2) on the day the designated Minister publishes his or her decision on the recommendation or as soon as practicable after that day. Consultation (4) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Council may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the person who made the application under section 44LB; (b) any other person the Council considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (c) specifying what the Council is proposing to publish; and (d) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Council within 14 days after the day the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (5) [Council to consider any submission] The Council must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [S 44LF insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION C – DESIGNATED MINISTER’S DECISION ON INELIGIBILITY 44LG

Designated Minister’s decision on ineligibility

(1) [Minister must decide service is ineligible to be a declared service] On receiving an ineligibility recommendation, the designated Minister must: (a) decide: (i) that the service is ineligible to be a declared service; and (ii) the period for which the decision is in force (which must be at least 20 years); or (b) decide that the service is not ineligible to be a declared service. Note: The designated Minister must publish his or her decision: see section 44LH. (2) [Minister must have regard to objects of Pt IIIA] The designated Minister must have regard to the objects of this Part in making his or her decision.

272

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2AA – Services that are ineligible to be declared

s 44LH

(3) [Relationship with access undertakings] The designated Minister may decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service even if the service is the subject of an access undertaking in operation under Division 6. (4) [Relationship with competitive tender processes] The designated Minister may decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service even if: (a) the service is proposed to be provided by means of a facility specified under paragraph 44PA(2)(a); and (b) a decision of the Commission is in force under subsection 44PA(3) approving a tender process, for the construction and operation of the facility, as a competitive tender process. (5) [Minister must be satisfied of certain matters] The designated Minister must not decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service unless he or she is satisfied of both of the following matters: (a) that the service is to be provided by means of the proposed facility when constructed; (b) that he or she is not satisfied of at least one of the matters referred to in subsection 44H(4) in relation to the service to be provided by means of the proposed facility. (6) [Minister deemed to have made a decision under s 44LG(1)] If the designated Minister does not publish under section 44LH his or her decision on the ineligibility recommendation within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day: (a) the designated Minister is taken, immediately after the end of that 60-day period, to have made a decision under subsection (1) in accordance with the ineligibility recommendation and to have published that decision under section 44LH; and (b) if the Council recommended that the designated Minister decide that the service be ineligible to be a declared service—the period for which the decision is in force is taken to be the period recommended by the Council. (7) [Minister’s decision not a legislative instrument] A decision of the designated Minister under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. [S 44LG insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

44LH

Designated Minister must publish his or her decision

(1) [Publication of decision] The designated Minister must publish, by electronic or other means, his or her decision on an ineligibility recommendation and his or her reasons for the decision. (2) [Copy of publication] The designated Minister must give a copy of the publication to the person who made the application under section 44LB.

(3) Before publishing under subsection (1), the designated Minister may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the person who made the application under section 44LB; (b) any other person the designated Minister considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (c) specifying what the designated Minister is proposing to publish; and (d) inviting the person to make a written submission to the designated Minister within 14 days after the day the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

273

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Consultation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44LH (4) [Minister to consider any submission] The designated Minister must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. He or she may have regard to any other matter he or she considers relevant. [S 44LH insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION D – REVOCATION OF INELIGIBILITY DECISION 44LI

Revocation of ineligibility decision

Council may recommend revocation if facility materially different or upon request (1) The Council may recommend to the designated Minister that the designated Minister revoke his or her decision (the ineligibility decision) that a service is ineligible to be a declared service. The Council must have regard to the objects of this Part in making its recommendation. (2) [Council must be satisfied of certain matters] The Council cannot recommend that a decision be revoked unless: (a) it is satisfied that, at the time of the recommendation, the facility that is (or will be) used to provide the service concerned is so materially different from the proposed facility described in the application made under section 44LB that the Council is satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection 44G(2) in relation to the service; or (b) the person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service that is provided, or that is proposed to be provided, by means of the facility requests that it be revoked. Minister must decide whether to revoke (3) On receiving a recommendation that the designated Minister revoke the ineligibility decision, the designated Minister must either revoke the ineligibility decision or decide not to revoke the ineligibility decision. (4) [Minister must have regard to objects of Pt IIIA] The designated Minister must have regard to the objects of this Part in making his or her decision. Minister must publish decision (5) The designated Minister must publish, by electronic or other means, the decision to revoke or not to revoke the ineligibility decision. (6) [Minister must provide reasons] If the designated Minister decides not to revoke the ineligibility decision, the designated Minister must give reasons for the decision to the person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service concerned when the designated Minister publishes the decision. Deemed decision of Minister (7) If the designated Minister does not publish his or her decision to revoke or not to revoke the ineligibility decision within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation to revoke the ineligibility decision is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day, the designated Minister is taken, immediately after the end of that 60-day period: (a) to have made a decision (the deemed decision) under subsection (3) that the ineligibility decision be revoked; and (b) to have published the deemed decision under subsection (5). Limits on when a revocation can be made (8) The designated Minister cannot revoke the ineligibility decision without receiving a recommendation from the Council that the ineligibility decision be revoked.

274

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2AA – Services that are ineligible to be declared

s 44LJ

When a revocation comes into operation (9) If the designated Minister revokes the ineligibility decision, the revocation comes into operation at: (a) (b)

if, within 21 days after the designated Minister publishes his or her decision, no person has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision—the end of that period; or if a person applies to the Tribunal within that period for review of the decision and the Tribunal affirms the decision—the time of the Tribunal’s decision.

Decision is not a legislative instrument (10) A decision of the designated Minister under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument. [S 44LI insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION E – REVIEW OF DECISIONS 44LJ

Review of ineligibility decisions

Application for review (1) A person whose interests are affected by a decision of the designated Minister under subsection 44LG(1) may apply in writing to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the designated Minister’s decision. (3) [Review is a reconsideration] The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA).

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Minister] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the designated Minister. Council to provide assistance (5) The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Council to give assistance for the purposes of the review.

(7) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. Tribunal’s decision (8) If the designated Minister decided that a service is ineligible to be a declared service, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

275

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(6) [Member may require Council to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Council to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44LJ Note: If the Tribunal sets aside a decision of the designated Minister that a service is ineligible to be a declared service, the designated Minister’s decision is no longer in force. This means the designated Minister is no longer prevented by subsection 44H(6C) from declaring the service. (9) [Tribunal must affirm or set aside Minister’s decision] If the designated Minister decided that a service is not ineligible to be a declared service, the Tribunal may either: (a) affirm the designated Minister’s decision; or (b) set aside the designated Minister’s decision and decide that the service is ineligible to be a declared service for a specified period (which must be at least 20 years). Effect of Tribunal’s decision (10) The Tribunal’s decision is taken to be a decision by the designated Minister for all purposes of this Part (except this section). [S 44LJ insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

44LK

Review of decision to revoke or not revoke an ineligibility decision

Application for review (1) A person whose interests are affected by a decision of the designated Minister under subsection 44LI(3) may apply in writing to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the designated Minister’s decision. (3) [Review is a reconsideration] The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA).

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Minister] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the designated Minister. Council to give assistance (5) The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Council to give assistance for the purposes of the review. (6) [Member may require Council to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Council to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. (7) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the person who is, or expects to be, the provider of the service; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. Tribunal’s decision (8) If the designated Minister decided to revoke his or her decision (the ineligibility decision) that the service is ineligible to be a declared service, the Tribunal may either:

276

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes (a) (b)

s 44M

affirm the designated Minister’s decision; or set aside the designated Minister’s decision to revoke the ineligibility decision.

(9) [Tribunal must affirm or set aside Minister’s decision] If the designated Minister decided not to revoke his or her ineligibility decision, the Tribunal may either: (a) affirm the designated Minister’s decision; or (b) set aside the designated Minister’s decision and revoke the ineligibility decision. Effect of Tribunal’s decision (10) If the Tribunal sets aside the designated Minister’s decision to revoke his or her ineligibility decision, the ineligibility decision is taken never to have been revoked. (11) [Tribunal’s decision deemed to be Minister’s decision] If the Tribunal sets aside the designated Minister’s decision and revokes the ineligibility decision, the Tribunal’s decision is, for the purposes of this Part other than this section, taken to be a decision by the Minister to revoke his or her decision that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. [S 44LK insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

SUBDIVISION F – OTHER MATTERS 44LL

Ineligibility decisions subject to alteration, cancellation etc

(1) [Basis for s 44LG decision] A decision of the designated Minister under section 44LG that a service is ineligible to be a declared service is made on the basis that: (a) the decision may be revoked under section 44LI; and (b) the decision may be cancelled, revoked, terminated or varied by or under later legislation; and (c) no compensation is payable if the decision is cancelled, revoked, terminated or varied as mentioned in any of the above paragraphs. (2) [S 44L(1) does not affect interpretation of other sections in this Act] Subsection (1) does not, by implication, affect the interpretation of any other provision of this Act. [S 44LL insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 7]

DIVISION 2A – EFFECTIVE ACCESS REGIMES [Former Subdiv C heading renum Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 34 and 35]

SUBDIVISION A – RECOMMENDATION BY COUNCIL [Subdiv A heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 35]

44M

Recommendation for a Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime

(1) [Application of section] This section applies if a State or Territory that is a party to the Competition Principles Agreement has established at any time a regime for access to a service or a proposed service. (2) [Effective access regime] The responsible Minister for the State or Territory may make a written application to the Council asking the Council to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister decide that the regime for access to the service or proposed service is an effective access regime. [Subs (2) am Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 18]

(3) [Council must make recommendation] The Council must recommend to the Commonwealth Minister:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

277

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (1) am Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 17]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44M (a) (b)

[CCA.44M.20] that he or she decide that the access regime is an effective access regime for the service, or proposed service; or that he or she decide that the access regime is not an effective access regime for the service, or proposed service.

Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Council’s recommendation: see section 44NC. Note 2: The Council may request information and invite public submissions on the application: see sections 44MA and 44NE.

Note 3: The Council must publish its recommendation: see section 44NF. [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 17 and 18; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 36; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

(4) [Considerations for recommendation] In deciding what recommendation it should make, the Council: (a) must, subject to subsection (4A), assess whether the access regime is an effective access regime by applying the relevant principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; and (aa) must have regard to the objects of this Part; and (b) must, subject to section 44DA, not consider any other matters. [Subs (4) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 37; Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 20]

(4A) [National Gas Law] In deciding what recommendation it should make, the Council must disregard Chapter 5 of a National Gas Law. [Subs (4A) subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 76; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11]

(5) [Period for decision] When the Council recommends that the Commonwealth Minister make a particular decision, the Council must also recommend the period for which the decision should be in force. [S 44M am Act 102 of 2010; Act 45 of 2007; Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6B prescribes the types of information which must be included in an application to the National Competition Council under s 44M(2) for a recommendation on the effectiveness of an access regime.]

SECTION 44M COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44M.20] Making an application ................................................................................................................... [CCA.44M.40] State and Territory regimes ........................................................................................................... [CCA.44M.60] Concept: effective regime ............................................................................................................. [CCA.44M.80]

[CCA.44M.20]

Outline

States and Territories are entitled to proclaim their own access regimes for essential facilities if they wish to do so. This section sets out the process by which States and Territories can ascertain whether or not an access regime they introduce is an effective regime for the purposes of the CCA. The practical consequence of a State or Territory regime being regarded as an effective regime is that the National Competition Council cannot make a recommendation that a service be declared under Pt IIIA if that service is already the subject of an effective regime: s 44G(2)(e). The process is a relatively simple one:

278

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

[CCA.44M.80]

s 44M

• the State or Territory prepares an access regime, which will normally be given effect in the State or Territory by specific legislation; • the regime is submitted to the NCC by the responsible State or Territory Minister; • the NCC reviews the regime in a public process by which it seeks and considers submissions made by the State or Territory as well as by interested members of the public; • the tests used by the NCC in conducting its review are those set out in the Competition Principles Agreement (see [13.6] in the online edition of this work) and the NCC may not take any other considerations into account; • the NCC publishes a draft report and invites and considers submissions on it; • the NCC forwards a final report to the federal Treasurer with a recommendation on whether or not, in its opinion, the regime is an effective one; and • the federal Treasurer then makes a decision on the recommendation and publishes that decision. The process of assessment undertaken by the NCC is an administrative process. It does not involve any formal hearings. A determination of the effectiveness or otherwise of an access regime does not affect its legality in the State or Territory that introduced it. All that a declaration of effectiveness does is immunise the services covered by the regime from an access application under the CCA. An alternative method of achieving the same result is to lodge an access undertaking with the ACCC. If the ACCC accepts the undertaking then the NCC cannot make a recommendation that the services be declared and the Minister cannot make a declaration. This is dealt with at [CCA.44ZZA.20]. Undertakings may be given to the ACCC by individual governments, companies or individuals or they may be given by industry bodies. If a State or Territory ceases to be a party to the Competition Principles Agreement then all declarations that a regime in that State or Territory is an effective regime expire automatically and access applications can be made under Pt IIIA. [CCA.44M.40]

Making an application

The Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (reg 6B) set out what must be included in an application to the NCC for a recommendation on the effectiveness of an access regime. The application must contain: • the name of the State or Territory making the application; • the name and designation of the responsible Minister and the Minister’s address; • the name and contact details of a contact officer for the State or Territory; • a description of the access regime and copy of relevant legislation; • a description of the services covered by the regime; and • the grounds on which it is claimed that the regime is an effective regime. [CCA.44M.60]

State and Territory regimes

See also: Re Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Ltd [2001] ACompT 2; (2001) 162 FLR 1; [2001] ATPR 41-821; DEI Queensland Pipeline Pty Ltd v ACCC [2002] ACompT 2; (2002) 167 FLR 353; [2002] ATPR 41-876; Re Michael (Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline) [2002] WASCA 231; (2002) 25 WAR 511; [2002] ATPR 41-886. [CCA.44M.80] Concept: effective regime The NCC is required to advise the federal Treasurer whether or not, in its opinion, the relevant State or Territory regime is an “effective regime”.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

279

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Details of State and Territory regimes in rail, gas, electricity and shipping are contained in Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, ThomsonReuters, 2012).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44MA

[CCA.44M.80]

In determining whether or not a regime is an effective regime the NCC applies the principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement: see [13.6] in the online edition of this work. Those principles include a requirement that a regime should: • provide for an independent body to determine access disputes; • place emphasis on parties negotiating an enforceable access agreement rather than resorting to arbitration in the first instance; • contain an arbitration process that takes into account: – the legitimate business interests of the owner of the facility; – the cost to the owner of providing access and the economic value to the owner of any additional investment the access seeker has agreed to make; – firm and binding contractual obligations of those already using the facility; – operational and technical requirements for the safe operation of the facility; – the economically efficient operation of the facility; – the benefit to the public from having competitive markets; • provide for separate accounting arrangements for the elements of the business covered by the access arrangements; • prohibit the owner or user of the facility engaging in conduct for the purpose of hindering access by others; and • where the service is covered by more that one State or Territory access regime, provide consistency between the regimes. 44MA

Council may request information

(1) [Request via written notice] The Council may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Council, within a specified period, information of the kind specified in the notice that the Council considers may be relevant to deciding what recommendation to make on an application under section 44M. (2) [Copies of notice] The Council must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) if the person is not the applicant—the applicant; and (ii) if the person is not the provider of the service—the provider; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (3) [Council to consider information given in compliance with notice] In deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. [S 44MA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

280

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

s 44N

SUBDIVISION B – DECISION BY COMMONWEALTH MINISTER [Subdiv B heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 38]

44N

Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime

(1) [Recommendations under s 44M] On receiving a recommendation under section 44M, the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) decide that the access regime is an effective access regime for the service or proposed service; or (b) decide that the access regime is not an effective access regime for the service or proposed service. Note: The Commonwealth Minister must publish his or her decision: see section 44NG. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 20 and 21; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 39 and 40; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 21]

(2) [Considerations for decision] In making a decision, the Commonwealth Minister: (a) must, subject to subsection (2A), apply the relevant principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; and (aa) must have regard to the objects of this Part; and (b) must, subject to section 44DA, not consider any other matters. [Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 41; Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 12; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 22]

(2A) [National Gas Law] In making a decision, the Commonwealth Minister must disregard Chapter 5 of a National Gas Law. [Subs (2A) subst Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 77; insrt Act 60 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

(3) [Period for decision] The decision must specify the period for which it is in force. Note: The period for which the decision is in force may be extended: see section 44NB. [Subs (3) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 42]

(4) [Minister deemed to have made a decision under s 44N(1)] If the Commonwealth Minister does not publish under section 44NG his or her decision on a recommendation under section 44M within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day: (a) the Commonwealth Minister is taken, immediately after the end of that 60-day period: (i) to have made a decision under subsection (1) in accordance with the recommendation made by the Council under section 44M; and (ii) to have published that decision under section 44NG; and (b) if the Council recommended that the Commonwealth Minister decide that the access regime is an effective access regime for the service, or proposed service—the decision is taken to be in force for the period recommended by the Council under subsection 44M(5). [S 44N am Act 102 of 2010; Act 45 of 2007; Act 92 of 2006; Act 60 of 2006; Act 101 of 1998; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

281

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (4) reinsrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 22; rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 43]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44NA SUBDIVISION C – EXTENSIONS OF COMMONWEALTH MINISTER’S DECISION [Subdiv C insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44NA

Recommendation by Council

(1) [Application to decision under s 44N (effective access regime)] This section applies if a decision of the Commonwealth Minister is in force under section 44N (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB) that a regime established by a State or Territory for access to a service is an effective access regime. Application to Council (2) The responsible Minister for the State or Territory may make a written application to the Council asking it to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister decide to extend the period for which the decision is in force. Note: The Commonwealth Minister may extend the period for which the decision is in force more than once: see section 44NB. This means there may be multiple applications under this subsection.

(3) [Proposed access regime variations] The responsible Minister for the State or Territory may specify in the application proposed variations to the access regime. Assessment by Council (4) The Council must assess whether the access regime (including any proposed variations) is an effective access regime. It must do this in accordance with subsection 44M(4). (5) [Extension period] If the Council is satisfied that it is an effective access regime, the Council must, in writing, recommend to the Commonwealth Minister that he or she extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force. The Council must also recommend an extension period. [Subs (5) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 23]

(6) [Recommendation against extension] If the Council is satisfied that it is not an effective access regime, the Council must, in writing, recommend to the Commonwealth Minister that he or she not extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Council’s recommendation: see section 44NC. Note 2: The Council may request information and invite public submissions on the application: see sections 44NAA and 44NE. Note 3: The Council must publish its recommendation: see section 44NF. [Subs (6) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 24–26] [S 44NA am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44NAA

Council may request information

(1) [Request via written notice] The Council may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Council, within a specified period, information of the kind specified in the notice that the Council considers may be relevant to deciding what recommendation to make on an application under section 44NA. (2) [Copies of notice] The Council must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) if the person is not the applicant—the applicant; and (ii) if the person is not the provider of the service—the provider; and

282

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

[CCA.44NBA.20] (b)

s 44NB

publish, by electronic or other means, the notice.

(3) [Council to consider information given in compliance with notice] In deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. [S 44NAA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 27]

44NB

Decision by the Commonwealth Minister

(1) [Assessment of access regime] On receiving a recommendation under section 44NA, the Commonwealth Minister must assess whether the access regime (including any proposed variations) is an effective access regime. He or she must do this in accordance with subsection 44N(2). Note: The Commonwealth Minister must publish his or her decision: see section 44NG. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 28 and 29]

(2) [Extension period] If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that it is, he or she must, by notice in writing, decide to extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force. The notice must specify the extension period. (3) [Recommendation against extension] If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that it is not, he or she must, by notice in writing, decide not to extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force. (3A) [Minister deemed to have made a decision under s 44NB] If the Commonwealth Minister does not publish under section 44NG his or her decision on a recommendation under section 44NA within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day: (a) the Commonwealth Minister is taken, immediately after the end of that 60-day period: (i) to have made a decision under this section in accordance with the recommendation made by the Council under section 44NA; and (ii) to have published that decision under section 44NG; and (b) if the Council recommended that the Commonwealth Minister extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force—the extension period is taken to be the extension period recommended by the Council under subsection 44NA(5). [Subs (3A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 30]

Multiple extensions (4) The Commonwealth Minister may extend the period for which a decision is in force under section 44N more than once.

SECTION 44NBA COMMENTARY [CCA.44NBA.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert the following section:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

283

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[S 44NB am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44 Cross-reference: s 44ND Trade Practices Act 1974 (at 13 April 2010, pre-reform).]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44NB

[CCA.44NBA.20]

(1) If a decision of the Commonwealth Minister is in force under section 44N (including as a result of an extension under section 44NB) that a regime established by a State or Territory for access to a service is an effective access regime, the Council: (a) may, on its own initiative; and (b) must, on an application made under subsection (3); consider whether to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister should revoke the decision. (2) Before considering on its own initiative whether to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister should revoke the decision, the Council must publish, by electronic or other means, a notice to that effect. (3) Any of the following may make a written application to the Council asking it to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister revoke the decision: (a) a person who is seeking access to the service; (b) the responsible Minister for the State or Territory; (c) the provider of the service. (4) In considering whether to make the recommendation, the Council must consider whether it is satisfied that the regime no longer meets the relevant principles, set out in the Competition Principles Agreement, relating to whether access regimes are effective access regimes, because of either or both of the following: (a) substantial changes to the regime; (b) substantial amendments of those principles. (5) If the Council is so satisfied, the Council must, in writing, recommend to the Commonwealth Minister that he or she revoke the decision. (6) If the Council is not so satisfied, the Council must, in writing, recommend to the Commonwealth Minister that he or she not revoke the decision. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Council’s recommendation: see section 44NC. Note 2: The Council may request information and invite public submissions: see sections 44NBB and 44NE. Note 3: The Council must publish its recommendation: see section 44NF. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

SECTION 44NBB COMMENTARY [CCA.44NBB.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert the following section: (1) The Council may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Council, within a specified period, information of the kind specified in the notice that the Council considers may be relevant to deciding what recommendation to make under section 44NBA. (2) The Council must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) if an application was made under subsection 44NBA(3) and the person is not the applicant—the applicant; and (ii) if the person is not the provider of the service—the provider; and (3) In deciding what recommendation to make, the Council: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and

284

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

[CCA.44NBC.20]

s 44NC

(b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

SECTION 44NBC COMMENTARY [CCA.44NBC.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert the following section: (1) On receiving a recommendation under section 44NBA, the Commonwealth Minister must assess whether he or she should revoke the decision. Subject to subsection (2) of this section, he or she must do this in accordance with subsection 44N(2). Note: The Commonwealth Minister must publish his or her decision: see section 44NG. (2) In making his or her assessment, the Commonwealth Minister must consider whether he or she is satisfied as to the matter set out in subsection 44NBA(4). (3) If the Commonwealth Minister is so satisfied, he or she must, by notice in writing, revoke the decision. The notice must specify the day on which the decision is to cease to be in force. (4) If the Commonwealth Minister is not so satisfied, he or she must, by notice in writing, decide not to revoke the decision. (5) If the Commonwealth Minister does not publish under section 44NG his or her decision on the recommendation within the period starting at the start of the day the recommendation is received and ending at the end of 60 days after that day, he or she is taken, immediately after the end of that 60 day period: (a) to have made a decision under this section in accordance with the recommendation made by the Council under section 44NBA; and (b) to have published that decision under section 44NG. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

SUBDIVISION D – PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS [Subdiv D insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44NC

Time limit for Council recommendations

Council to make recommendation within the consideration period (1) The Council must make a recommendation on an application under section 44M or 44NA within the consideration period. (2) [Meaning of consideration period] The consideration period is a period of 180 days (the expected period), starting at the start of the day the application is received, unless the consideration period is extended under subsection (7).

(3) In working out the expected period in relation to a recommendation on an application under section 44M or 44NA, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

285

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Stopping the clock

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44NC

Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Situation 1 An agreement is made in relation to the application under subsection (5) 2 A notice is given under subsection 44MA(1) requesting information in relation to the application 3 A notice is given under subsection 44NAA(1) requesting information in relation to the application

Column 2 Start day The first day of the period specified in the agreement

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement

The day on which the notice The last day of the period is given specified in the notice for the giving of the information The day on which the notice The last day of the period is given specified in the notice for the giving of the information

(4) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (3): (a) do not disregard any day more than once; and (b) the total period that is disregarded under that subsection must not exceed 60 days. Stopping the clock by agreement (5) The Council, the applicant and the provider of the service (if the provider is not the applicant) may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (6) [Publication of agreement] The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement. Council may extend time for making recommendation (7) If the Council is unable to make a recommendation within the consideration period (whether it is the expected period or the consideration period as previously extended under this subsection), it must, by notice in writing to the Commonwealth Minister, extend the consideration period by a specified period. (8) [Details of notice] The notice must: (a) specify when the Council must now make its recommendation on the application; and (b) include a statement explaining why the Council has been unable to make a decision on the recommendation within the consideration period. (9) [Copies of notice] The Council must give a copy of the notice to: (a) the applicant; and (b) if the applicant is not the provider of the service—the provider. Publication (10) If the Council extends the consideration period under subsection (7), it must publish a notice in a national newspaper: (a) stating that it has done so; and (b) specifying the day by which it must now make a recommendation on the application.

286

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

s 44NE

Failure to comply with time limit does not affect validity (11) Failure by the Council to comply with a time limit set in this section does not affect the validity of a recommendation made under this section. [S 44NC subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 31; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44ND

Target time limits—Commonwealth Minister [Repealed]

[S 44ND rep Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 32; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

History of the TPA/ACL For current provision (post ACL reform) see s 44NB(3A), (4). 44NE

Council may invite public submissions

Invitation (1) The Council may publish, by electronic or other means, a notice inviting public submissions on an application under section 44M or 44NA if it considers that it is appropriate and practicable to do so. (2) [Details for notice] The notice must specify how submissions may be made and the day by which submissions may be made (which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice is published). Consideration of submissions (3) Subject to subsection (6), in deciding what recommendation to make on the application, the Council: (a) must have regard to any submission made on or before the day specified in the notice; and (b) may disregard any submission made after the day specified in the notice. [Subs (3) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 33]

Council may make submissions publicly available (4) The Council may make any written submission, or a written record (which may be a summary) of any oral submission, publicly available. Confidentiality

(6) [Refusal of confidentiality request] If the Council refuses such a request: (a) for a written submission—the Council must, if the person who made it so requires, return the whole or the part of it to the person; and (b) for an oral submission—the person who made it may inform the Council that the person withdraws the whole or the part of it; and (c) if the Council returns the whole or the part of the submission, or the person withdraws the whole or the part of the submission, the Council must not: (i) make the whole or the part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (ii) publish or make available the whole or the part of the submission under section 44NF; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

287

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(5) A person may, at the time of making a submission, request that the Council: (a) not make the whole or a part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (b) not publish or make available the whole or a part of the submission under section 44NF; because of the confidential commercial information contained in the submission.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44NE (iii)

have regard to the whole or the part of the submission in making its recommendation on the application.

[S 44NE am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44NF

Publication—Council

(1) [Publication and reasons] The Council must publish, by electronic or other means, a recommendation under section 44M or 44NA and its reasons for the recommendation. (2) [Copies] The Council must give a copy of the publication to: (a) the applicant under section 44M or 44NA; and (b) the provider of the service. Timing (3) The Council must do the things under subsections (1) and (2) on the day the Commonwealth Minister publishes his or her decision on the recommendation or as soon as practicable after that day. Consultation (4) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Council may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the applicant under section 44M or 44NA; (b) the provider of the service; (c) any other person the Council considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (d) specifying what the Council is proposing to publish; and (e) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Council within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (5) [Council to consider any submission] The Council must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [S 44NF insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

44NG

Publication—Commonwealth Minister

(1) [Publication and reasons] The Commonwealth Minister must publish, by electronic or other means, his or her decision on a recommendation under section 44M or 44NA and his or her reasons for the decision. (2) [Copies] The Commonwealth Minister must give a copy of the publication to: (a) the applicant under section 44M or 44NA; and (b) the provider of the service. Consultation (3) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Commonwealth Minister may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) the applicant under section 44M or 44NA; (b) the provider of the service; (c) any other person the Minister considers appropriate; a notice in writing:

288

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 2A – Effective access regimes

s 44O

(d) specifying what the Minister is proposing to publish; and (e) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Minister within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (4) [Council to consider any submission] The Commonwealth Minister must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. He or she may have regard to any other matter he or she considers relevant. [S 44NG insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 44]

SUBDIVISION E – REVIEW OF DECISIONS [Subdiv E heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 45]

44O

Review of Ministerial decision on effectiveness of access regime

(1) [Responsible State Minister may apply for review] The responsible Minister of the State or Territory: (a) who applied for a recommendation under section 44M that the Commonwealth Minister decide that the access regime is an effective access regime; or (b) who applied for a recommendation under section 44NA that the Commonwealth Minister decide to extend the period for which the decision under section 44N is in force; may apply to the Tribunal for review of the Commonwealth Minister’s decision. [Subs (1) subst Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 46]

(2) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the Commonwealth Minister’s decision. (3) [Review is a reconsideration] The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 34 and 35; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 47]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Minister] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commonwealth Minister. (5) [Member can request Council assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Council to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 36]

(5A) [Member may require Council to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Council to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. (5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for the review; and (ii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

289

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 36]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44O

[CCA.44O.20]

(b)

publish, by electronic or other means, the notice.

[Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 36]

(6) [Decision may be affirmed, varied or reversed] The Tribunal may affirm, vary or reverse the Commonwealth Minister’s decision. (7) [Decision by Tribunal is decision by Minister] A decision made by the Tribunal is to be taken to be a decision of the Commonwealth Minister for all purposes of this Part (except this section). [S 44O am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 20A(2) provides that an application to the Australian Competition Tribunal under s 44O(1) for review of a decision of the Commonwealth Minister on the effectiveness of an access regime must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form JB.]

SECTION 44O COMMENTARY [CCA.44O.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert the following: (1A) If, on receiving a recommendation under section 44NBA relating to a decision under section 44N, the Commonwealth Minister has made a decision under section 44NBC: (a) the person who applied under subsection 44NBA(3) for the Council to make a recommendation relating to that decision under section 44N; or (b) any other person who could have applied under subsection 44NBA(3) for the Council to make such a recommendation; may apply to the Tribunal for review of the Commonwealth Minister’s decision under section 44NBC. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

SUBDIVISION F – STATE OR TERRITORY CEASING TO BE A PARTY TO COMPETITION PRINCIPLES AGREEMENT [Subdiv F heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 48]

44P

State or Territory ceasing to be a party to Competition Principles Agreement

If a State or Territory that has established a regime for access to a service or proposed service ceases to be a party to the Competition Principles Agreement: (a) a decision by the Commonwealth Minister that the regime is an effective access regime ceases to be in force; and (b) the Council, the Commonwealth Minister and the Tribunal need not take any further action relating to an application for a decision by the Commonwealth Minister that the regime is an effective access regime. [S 44P am Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 23; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

290

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 2B - Competitive tender processes for gvt owned facilities

s 44PA

DIVISION 2B – COMPETITIVE TENDER PROCESSES FOR GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES [Div 2B insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

44PA

Approval of competitive tender process

Application to Commission (1) The Commonwealth Minister, or the responsible Minister of a State or Territory, may make a written application to the Commission asking it to approve a tender process, for the construction and operation of a facility that is to be owned by the Commonwealth, State or Territory, as a competitive tender process. (2) [Application requirements] The application must: (a) specify the service or services proposed to be provided by means of the facility; and (b) be in accordance with the regulations. Decision of Commission (3) The Commission must, by notice in writing, approve or refuse to approve the tender process as a competitive tender process. Note 1: While a decision is in force approving a tender process as a competitive tender process, the designated Minister cannot declare any service provided by means of the facility that was specified under paragraph (2)(a): see subsection 44H(3A). Note 2: There are time limits that apply to the Commission’s decision: see section 44PD. Note 3: The Commission may request information and invite public submissions on the application: see sections 44PAA and 44PE. Note 4: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44PF. [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 37 and 38]

(4) [Competitive tender process] The Commission must not approve a tender process as a competitive tender process unless: (a) it is satisfied that reasonable terms and conditions of access to any service specified under paragraph (2)(a) will be the result of the process; and (b) it is satisfied that the tender process meets the requirements prescribed by the regulations. (4A) [Approval of competitive tender process] The Commission may approve the tender process as a competitive tender process even if the service proposed to be provided by means of the facility is the subject of a decision by the designated Minister under section 44LG that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. Period for which decision in force (5) If the Commission approves the tender process as a competitive tender process, it may specify in the notice the period for which the decision is in force. Note: Section 44PC provides for revocation of the decision. (6) [Extension of period] The Commission may, by writing, extend that period by a specified period. The Commission may do so more than once. Legislation Act 2003 (7) A notice under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (7) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 items 128 and 129, with effect from 5 Mar 2016] [S 44PA am Act 126 of 2015; Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

291

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (4A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 8]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44PA

[CCA.44PA.20]

Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6FA sets out requirements for an application for approval of a tender process for the construction and operation of facility as a competitive tender process for s 44PA(2)(b); and reg 6FB sets out requirements which a tender process must meet before being approved as a competitive tender process for s 44PA(4)(b).]

SECTION 44PA COMMENTARY [CCA.44PA.20]

Summary

This section permits the relevant Minister to apply to the ACCC to exempt the operation of facilities to be constructed for the Commonwealth, a State or Territory pursuant to a tender, from the declaration/ arbitration process. The ACCC, through a 90-day public process, may approve the tender process if it is satisfied that access on reasonable terms to services proposed to be provided by the facility will result from the process and that the process complies with regulations setting out the tender procedures and rules, including the selection criteria. If the ACCC approves the process, the declaration/arbitration process does not apply for the term of the ACCC’s approval. Anyone whose interests are affected by a decision may seek a review by the Tribunal: s 44PG. 44PAA

Commission may request information

(1) [Request via written notice] The Commission may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Commission, within a specified period, information of the kind specified in the notice that the Commission considers may be relevant to deciding whether to approve or refuse to approve a tender process under section 44PA. (2) [Copies of notice] The Commission must: (a) if the person is not the applicant—give a copy of the notice to the applicant; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (3) [Commission to consider information given in compliance with notice] In deciding whether to approve or refuse to approve the tender process, the Commission: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. [S 44PAA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 39]

44PB

Report on conduct of tender process

Report (1) If the Commission approves a tender process as a competitive tender process, it must, after a tenderer is chosen, ask the applicant under subsection 44PA(1), by notice in writing, to give the Commission a written report on the conduct of the tender process. (2) [Report to accord with regulations] The report must be in accordance with the regulations. Commission may ask for further information (3) After the Commission receives the report, it may ask the applicant under subsection 44PA(1), by notice in writing, to give the Commission further information in relation to the conduct of the tender process.

292

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 2B - Competitive tender processes for gvt owned facilities

s 44PC

Legislation Act 2003 (4) A report under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (4) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 items 130 and 131, with effect from 5 Mar 2016] [S 44PB am Act 126 of 2015; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6FC sets out requirements for a report on the conduct of a tender process for s 44PB(2).]

44PC

Revocation of approval decision

Discretionary revocation (1) The Commission may, by writing, revoke a decision to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process if it is satisfied that the assessment of the tenders was not in accordance with that process. Note 1: The Commission may invite public submissions on any proposed revocation decision: see section 44PE. Note 2: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44PF. (2) [Revocation of decision] The Commission may, by writing, revoke a decision to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process if it is satisfied that the provider of a service: (a) specified under paragraph 44PA(2)(a); and (b) being provided by means of the facility concerned; is not complying with the terms and conditions of access to the service. Note 1: The Commission may invite public submissions on any proposed revocation decision: see section 44PE. Note 2: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44PF. (3) [Written notice] Before making a decision under subsection (2), the Commission must give the applicant under subsection 44PA(1), and the provider of the service, a written notice: (a) stating that the Commission is proposing to make such a decision and the reasons for it; and (b) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Commission on the proposal; and (c) stating that any submission must be made within the period of 40 business days after the notice is given. (4) [Commission to consider any submission] The Commission must consider any written submission received within that period. Mandatory revocation (5) If: (a) the Commission approves a tender process as a competitive tender process; and (b) the Commission gives the applicant a notice under subsection 44PB(1) or (3); and (c) the applicant does not comply with the notice within the period of 40 business days beginning on the day on which the notice is given; the Commission must, by writing, revoke the approval decision at the end of that period. The Commission must give notice of the revocation to the applicant.

(6) In this section: business day means a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory. [S 44PC insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

293

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Definition

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44PD 44PD

Time limit for Commission decisions

Commission to make decision within 90 days (1) The Commission must make a decision on an application under subsection 44PA(1) within the period of 90 days (the expected period) starting at the start of the day the application is received. Stopping the clock (2) In working out the expected period in relation to a decision on an application under subsection 44PA(1), in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item. Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Column 2 Situation Start day 1 An agreement is made in rela- The first day of the period tion to the application under specified in the agreement subsection (4) 2 A notice is given under sub- The day on which the notice section 44PAA(1) requesting is given information in relation to the application 3 A notice is published under The day on which the notice subsection 44PE(1) inviting is published public submissions in relation to the application (3) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (2), do not disregard any day more than once.

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement The last day of the period specified in the notice for the giving of the information The day specified in the notice as the day by which submissions may be made

Stopping the clock by agreement (4) The Commission and the applicant may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (5) [Publication of agreement] The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement. Deemed approval as a competitive tender process (6) If the Commission does not publish under subsection 44PF(1) its decision on the application within the expected period, it is taken, immediately after the end of the expected period, to have: (a) approved the tender process as a competitive tender process; and (b) published the decision to approve the process and its reasons for that decision; and (c) specified that the decision is in force for a period of 20 years, starting 21 days after the start of the day the decision is taken to have been published. [S 44PD subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 40; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

294

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 2B - Competitive tender processes for gvt owned facilities 44PE

s 44PF

Commission may invite public submissions

Invitation (1) The Commission may publish, by electronic or other means, a notice inviting public submissions: (a) on an application under subsection 44PA(1); or (b) on any proposed decision under subsection 44PC(1) or (2) to revoke a decision under subsection 44PA(3) to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process; if it considers that it is appropriate and practicable to do so. (2) [Details for notice] The notice must specify how submissions may be made and the day by which submissions may be made (which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice is published). Consideration of submissions (3) Subject to subsection (6), in making its decision, the Commission: (a) must have regard to any submission made on or before the day specified in the notice; and (b) may disregard any submission made after the day specified in the notice. [Subs (3) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 41]

Commission may make submissions publicly available (4) The Commission may make any written submission, or a written record (which may be a summary) of any oral submission, publicly available. Confidentiality (5) A person may, at the time of making a submission, request that the Commission: (a) not make the whole or a part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (b) not publish or make available the whole or a part of the submission under section 44PF; because of the confidential commercial information contained in the submission. (6) [Refusal of confidentiality request] If the Commission refuses such a request: (a) for a written submission—the Commission must, if the person who made it so requires, return the whole or the part of it to the person; and (b) for an oral submission—the person who made it may inform the Commission that the person withdraws the whole or the part of it; and (c) if the Commission returns the whole or the part of the submission, or the person withdraws the whole or the part of the submission, the Commission must not: (i) make the whole or the part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (ii) publish or make available the whole or the part of the submission under section 44PF; and (iii) have regard to the whole or the part of the submission in making its decision. [S 44PE am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

Commission must publish its decisions

(1) [Publication of decision] The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, a decision under subsection 44PA(3) or 44PC(1) or (2) and its reasons for the decision. (2) [Copies] The Commission must give a copy of the publication to: (a) for any decision—the applicant under subsection 44PA(1); and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

295

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

44PF

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44PF (b) for a decision under subsection 44PC(2)—the provider of the service. It may also give a copy to any other person the Commission considers appropriate. Consultation (3) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Commission may give the following persons: (a) for any decision—the applicant under subsection 44PA(1) or any other person the Commission considers appropriate; (b) for a decision under subsection 44PC(2)—the provider of the service; a notice in writing: (c) specifying what the Commission is proposing to publish; and (d) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Commission within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (4) [Commission to consider any submission] The Commission must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [S 44PF insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

44PG

Review of Commission’s initial decision

Application (1) A person whose interests are affected by a decision of the Commission under subsection 44PA(3) may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] The person must apply for review within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision. Review (3) The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 42 and 43]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Commission] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commission. (5) [Member can request Commission assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Commission to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 45]

(5A) [Member may require Commission to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Commission to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 45]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and

296

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 2B - Competitive tender processes for gvt owned facilities

s 44PH

(ii)

(b)

the person who made the application under subsection 44PA(1) requesting approval of a tender process as a competitive tender process; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and publish, by electronic or other means, the notice.

[Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 45]

Tribunal’s decision (6) If the Commission refused to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process, the Tribunal must, by writing: (a) affirm the Commission’s decision; or (b) set aside the Commission’s decision and approve the process as a competitive tender process. (7) [Decision by Tribunal is decision of Commission] A decision of the Tribunal to approve a process as a competitive tender process is taken to be a decision by the Commission for all purposes of this Part (except this section). (8) [Tender process: Tribunal must affirm or revoke Commission decision] If the Commission approved a tender process as a competitive tender process, the Tribunal must, by writing, affirm or set aside the Commission’s decision. Note: If the Tribunal sets aside a decision of the Commission to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process, the Commission’s decision is no longer in force. This means the designated Minister is no longer prevented by subsection 44H(3A) from declaring a service provided by means of the facility concerned. [S 44PG am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

44PH

Review of decision to revoke an approval

Application (1) If the Commission makes a decision under subsection 44PC(1) or (2), the following persons may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the decision: (a) for either decision—the applicant under subsection 44PA(1) or any other person whose interests are affected by the decision; (b) for a decision under subsection 44PC(2)—the provider of the service. (2) [21 days to apply for review] The person must apply for review within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision. Review (3) The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA).

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Commission] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commission. (5) [Member can request Commission assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Commission to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 48]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

297

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 46 and 47]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44PH (5A) [Member may require Commission to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Commission to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 48]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the person who made the application under subsection 44PA(1) requesting approval of a tender process as a competitive tender process; and (iii) for a review of a decision under subsection 44PC(2)—the provider of the service; and (iv) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. [Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 48]

Tribunal’s decision (6) The Tribunal must, by writing, affirm or set aside the Commission’s decision. [S 44PH am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49]

DIVISION 2C – REGISTER OF DECISIONS AND DECLARATIONS [Div 2C heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 50]

44Q

Register of decisions, declarations and ineligibility decisions

The Commission must maintain a public register that includes: (a) each decision of the Commonwealth Minister that a regime established by a State or Territory for access to a service is an effective access regime for the service or proposed service; and (aa) each decision of the Commonwealth Minister to extend the period for which a decision under section 44N is in force; and (b) each declaration (including a declaration that is no longer in force); and (ba) each decision of a designated Minister under section 44LG that a service is ineligible to be a declared service; and (bb) each decision of a designated Minister under section 44LI to revoke his or her decision that a service is ineligible to be a declared service; and (c) each decision of the Commission under subsection 44PA(3) to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process; and (d) each decision of the Commission under section 44PC to revoke a decision under subsection 44PA(3). [S 44Q am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 9; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 52; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 24; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 6H states that a person may inspect the public register of decisions and declarations kept under s 44Q and obtain copies of documents on those registers provided a written request is made in person at the relevant office and a fee is paid; • reg 6I provides that a certified copy of a document contained in a Pt IIIA register can be relied upon as evidence of that document;

298

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

[CCA.44Q.20]

s 44S

• reg 28(1) and (2) prescribes copying fees for a requested document; and • reg 28(3) entitles a person appearing before the Commission or Tribunal, without payment of a fee, to receive one certified copy of a document relating to the proceeding or matter.]

SECTION 44Q COMMENTARY [CCA.44Q.20]

Register

The Register of Decisions and Declarations is on the ACCC website at: http://www.accc.gov.au.

DIVISION 3 – ACCESS TO DECLARED SERVICES SUBDIVISION A – SCOPE OF DIVISION 44R

Constitutional limits on operation of this Division

This Division does not apply in relation to a third party’s access to a service unless: (a) the provider is a corporation (or a partnership or joint venture consisting wholly of corporations); or (b) the third party is a corporation; or (c) the access is (or would be) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce. [S 44R insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SUBDIVISION B – NOTIFICATION OF ACCESS DISPUTES 44S

Notification of access disputes

(1) [Disagreement between third-party and provider] If a third party is unable to agree with the provider on one or more aspects of access to a declared service, either the provider or the third party may notify the Commission in writing that an access dispute exists, but only to the extent that those aspects of access are not the subject of an access undertaking that is in operation in relation to the service. Note: An example of one of the things on which a provider and third party might disagree is whether a previous determination ought to be varied. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 53]

[S 44S am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6C prescribes the types of information which must be included in a notification under s 44S of an access dispute in relation to a declared service and provides that a $2,750 fee is payable to the ACCC at the time of giving the notification.]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

299

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(2) [Notification in writing] On receiving the notification, the Commission must give notice in writing of the access dispute to: (a) the provider, if the third party notified the access dispute; (b) the third party, if the provider notified the access dispute; (c) any other person whom the Commission thinks might want to become a party to the arbitration.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44T

[CCA.44S.20]

SECTION 44S COMMENTARY [CCA.44S.20]

Outline

This section entitles anyone who seeks access to an essential service but who is unable to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of that access with the owner or provider to apply to the ACCC to have the dispute determined by arbitration. The Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (reg 6C) set out the information that is to be included in a notification to the ACCC of an access dispute. That information includes a description of the service and of the facility used to provide the service, whether the facility would need to be expanded to provide the service and details of the dispute and of efforts made to resolve it. An application fee of $2,750 is payable. If the ACCC is required to arbitrate on an access dispute it levies charges on the parties as follows: • pre-hearing fee $10,850 (reduced to $2,170 if the dispute is over a variation to an existing determination); • hearing fee $4,340 per day or part thereof. The application fee is payable by the applicant, but hearing fees are apportioned by the ACCC between the parties to the arbitration. 44T

Withdrawal of notifications

(1) [Withdrawal before final determination] A notification may be withdrawn as follows (and not otherwise): (a) if the provider notified the dispute: (i) the provider may withdraw the notification at any time before the Commission makes its final determination; (ii) the third party may withdraw the provider’s notification at any time after the Commission issues a draft final determination, but before it makes its final determination; (b) if the third party notified the dispute, the third party may withdraw the notification at any time before the Commission makes its determination. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 54–56]

(2) [Where third party may not withdraw provider’s notification] Despite subparagraph (1)(a)(ii), if the provider notified a dispute over variation of a final determination, the third party may not withdraw the provider’s notification. [Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 57]

(3) [Withdrawn notifications were never given] If the notification is withdrawn, it is taken for the purposes of this Part never to have been given. [S 44T am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6D prescribes the types of information which must be included in a withdrawal of a notification of an access dispute under s 44T to the ACCC and details when the withdrawal notice takes effect.]

SECTION 44T COMMENTARY [CCA.44T.20]

Outline

This section deals with withdrawal of notification of an access dispute where, for instance, the parties are able to negotiate a resolution to the matter following notification of the dispute to the ACCC. There are limits on the right to withdraw a dispute once it has been notified to the ACCC, but the consent of the

300

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44T.20]

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

s 44V

ACCC is not required. The Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (reg 6D) set out the information that is to be provided to the ACCC if a party wishes to withdraw notification to the ACCC of an access dispute. If parties are able to reach agreement without proceeding to arbitration the ACCC can be asked to register the agreement they reach: see s 44ZW. If an agreement is registered it may be enforced in the same manner as if it were a determination by the ACCC. A $5,425 fee applies: reg 6G.

SUBDIVISION C – ARBITRATION OF ACCESS DISPUTES 44U

Parties to the arbitration

The parties to the arbitration of an access dispute are: (a) the provider; (b) the third party; (c) any other person who applies in writing to be made a party and is accepted by the Commission as having a sufficient interest. [S 44U insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44V

Determination by Commission

(1) [Final and interim determinations] Unless it terminates the arbitration under section 44Y, 44YA, 44ZZCB or 44ZZCBA, the Commission: (a) must make a written final determination; and (b) may make a written interim determination; on access by the third party to the service. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to the Commission’s final determination: see section 44XA. Note 2: The Commission may defer arbitration of the access dispute if it is also considering an access undertaking: see section 44ZZCB. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 14; Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 49; subst Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 58]

(2) [Determination may deal with anything relating to third party access] A determination may deal with any matter relating to access by the third party to the service, including matters that were not the basis for notification of the dispute. By way of example, the determination may: (a) require the provider to provide access to the service by the third party; (b) require the third party to accept, and pay for, access to the service; (c) specify the terms and conditions of the third party’s access to the service; (d) require the provider to extend the facility; (da) require the provider to permit interconnection to the facility by the third party; (e) specify the extent to which the determination overrides an earlier determination relating to access to the service by the third party. [Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 59 and 60]

(3) [No requirement to provide access] A determination does not have to require the provider to provide access to the service by the third party. (4) [Draft determination] Before making a determination, the Commission must give a draft determination to the parties. (5) [Reasons for making determination] When the Commission makes a determination, it must give the parties to the arbitration its reasons for making the determination.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

301

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (3) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 61]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44V

[CCA.44V.20]

(6) [Determination not a legislative instrument] A determination is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (6) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 item 131, with effect from 5 Mar 2016; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 andSch 1 item 62] [S 44V am Act 126 of 2015; Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44V COMMENTARY Outline ............................................................................................................................................ [CCA.44V.20] Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................... [CCA.44V.40] Arbitration over pricing ................................................................................................................... [CCA.44V.60]

[CCA.44V.20]

Outline

Where a dispute over access terms arises and is notified to the ACCC under s 44S, the ACCC is required to arbitrate the matter under this section, although it may defer the arbitration if, at the same time, it has an access undertaking under consideration. In undertaking an arbitration the ACCC may decide to terminate it if, among other things, the ACCC thinks that the application is vexatious, trivial, misconceived or lacking in substance. Section 44V(2) sets out, by way of example, the types of arbitrated outcomes that the ACCC might consider, and s 44W sets out the limitations on what the ACCC may decide. A party dissatisfied with a determination by the ACCC may apply to the Tribunal for review under s 44ZP. [CCA.44V.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to insert the following: (2A) Without limiting paragraph (2)(d), a requirement referred to in that paragraph may do either or both of the following: (a) require the provider to expand the capacity of the facility; (b) require the provider to expand the geographical reach of the facility. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.44V.60]

Arbitration over pricing

Access pricing will often be a matter on which access providers and access seekers are unable to agree. While it is not within the scope of this book to deal with this subject in detail, reference should be made to Re East Australian Pipeline Ltd [2004] ACompT 8; [2004] ATPR 42-006, which demonstrates the approach the Tribunal takes in pricing disputes over access pricing to infrastructure. Note, however, ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 83; (2006) 152 FCR 33; 232 ALR 153; [2006] ATPR 42-124. 44W

Restrictions on access determinations

(1) [Where Commission not to make determination] The Commission must not make a determination that would have any of the following effects: (a) preventing an existing user obtaining a sufficient amount of the service to be able to meet the user’s reasonably anticipated requirements, measured at the time when the dispute was notified; (b) preventing a person from obtaining, by the exercise of a pre-notification right, a sufficient amount of the service to be able to meet the person’s actual requirements;

302

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

[CCA.44W.20]

s 44W

(c) (d)

depriving any person of a protected contractual right; resulting in the third party becoming the owner (or one of the owners) of any part of the facility, or of extensions of the facility, without the consent of the provider; (e) requiring the provider to bear some or all of the costs of extending the facility or maintaining extensions of the facility; (f) requiring the provider to bear some or all of the costs of interconnections to the facility or maintaining interconnections to the facility.

[Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 63]

(2) [Determination relating to an earlier determination] Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in relation to the requirements and rights of the third party and the provider when the Commission is making a determination in arbitration of an access dispute relating to an earlier determination of an access dispute between the third party and the provider. (3) [Contravention of subs (1)] A determination is of no effect if it is made in contravention of subsection (1). (4) [Compensation for deprivation] If the Commission makes a determination that has the effect of depriving a person (the second person) of a pre-notification right to require the provider to supply the service to the second person, the determination must also require the third party: (a) to pay to the second person such amount (if any) as the Commission considers is fair compensation for the deprivation; and (b) to reimburse the provider and the Commonwealth for any compensation that the provider or the Commonwealth agrees, or is required by a court order, to pay to the second party as compensation for the deprivation. Note: Without infringing paragraph (1)(b), a determination may deprive a second person of the right to be supplied with an amount of service equal to the difference between the total amount of service the person was entitled to under a pre-notification right and the amount that the person actually needs to meet his or her actual requirements.

(4A) [Commission must await Tribunal’s review decision] If an application for review of a declaration of a service has been made under subsection 44K(1), the Commission must not make a determination in relation to the service until the Tribunal has made its decision on the review. [Subs (4A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 15]

(5) [Definitions] In this section: existing user means a person (including the provider) who was using the service at the time when the dispute was notified. pre-notification right means a right under a contract, or under a determination, that was in force at the time when the dispute was notified. protected contractual right means a right under a contract that was in force at the beginning of 30 March 1995.

SECTION 44W COMMENTARY [CCA.44W.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft proposing to amend s 44W(1)(d) and substitute for s 44W(1)(e) the following:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

303

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[S 44W am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44X

[CCA.44W.20]

(1)(d) After “extensions of the facility”, insert “(including expansions of the capacity of the facility and expansions of the geographical reach of the facility)”. (e) requiring the provider to bear some or all of the costs of extending the facility (including expanding the capacity of the facility and expanding the geographical reach of the facility); (ea) requiring the provider to bear some or all of the costs of maintaining extensions of the facility (including expansions of the capacity of the facility and expansions of the geographical reach of the facility); Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. 44X

Matters that the Commission must take into account

Final determinations (1) The Commission must take the following matters into account in making a final determination: (aa) the objects of this Part; (a) the legitimate business interests of the provider, and the provider’s investment in the facility; (b) the public interest, including the public interest in having competition in markets (whether or not in Australia); (c) the interests of all persons who have rights to use the service; (d) the direct costs of providing access to the service; (e) the value to the provider of extensions whose cost is borne by someone else; (ea) the value to the provider of interconnections to the facility whose cost is borne by someone else; (f) the operational and technical requirements necessary for the safe and reliable operation of the facility; (g) the economically efficient operation of the facility; (h) the pricing principles specified in section 44ZZCA. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 64–67]

(2) [Other matters] The Commission may take into account any other matters that it thinks are relevant. Interim determinations (3) The Commission may take the following matters into account in making an interim determination: (a) a matter referred to in subsection (1); (b) any other matter it considers relevant. [Subs (3) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 68]

(4) [No duty to consider certain matters] In making an interim determination, the Commission does not have a duty to consider whether to take into account a matter referred to in subsection (1). [Subs (4) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 68] [S 44X am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44X COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44X.20] Concepts: economically efficient operation of the facility ............................................................. [CCA.44X.40]

304

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

[CCA.44X.40] [CCA.44X.20]

s 44XA

Outline

This section links back to the Competition Principles Agreement, which provides a guide for determining whether access to particular services should be declared and whether an access regime should be regarded as effective. The section sets out mandatory considerations the ACCC must take into account in making a final access determination. Slightly greater flexibility is permitted in relation to interim decisions. The ACCC may also take into account other matters it regards as relevant. The Competition Principles Agreement sets out 16 indicia of a conforming State or Territory access regime. Those indicia take into account the following issues: • the legitimate business interests of the owner of the facility; • the cost to the owner of providing access and the economic value to the owner of any additional investment the access seeker has agreed to make; • firm and binding contractual obligations of those already using the facility; • operational and technical requirements for the safe operation of the facility; • the economically efficient operation of the facility; and • the benefit to the public from having competitive markets. The mandatory requirements of this section differ slightly from those indicia and now include the requirement that the ACCC take into account any pricing principles determined by the Minister and, where access involves interconnection, the value to the access provider of the interconnection, where the cost of interconnecting has been borne by someone other than the asset owner. [CCA.44X.40]

Concepts: economically efficient operation of the facility

See [CCA.44DA.40]. 44XA

Time limit for Commission’s final determination

Commission to make final determination within 180 days (1) The Commission must make a final determination within the period of 180 days (the expected period) starting at the start of the day the application is received.

Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Situation 1 An agreement is made in relation to the arbitration under subsection (4) 2 A direction is given under subsection 44ZG(1) to give information or make a submission within a specified period

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

Column 2 Start day The first day of the period specified in the agreement

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement

The first day of the period specified for the giving of the information or the making of the submission

The last day of the period specified for the giving of the information or the making of the submission

305

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Stopping the clock (2) In working out the expected period in relation to a final determination, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44XA

Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Column 2 Situation Start day 3 A decision is published under The day on which the decisubsection 44ZZCB(4) defer- sion is published ring consideration of the dispute while the Commission considers an access undertaking 4 The Commission, under sub- The day on which the Comsection 44ZZCBA(1) or (2), mission gives the notice to defers arbitrating the dispute defer arbitrating the dispute while a declaration is under review by the Tribunal (3) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (2), do not disregard any day more than once.

Column 3 End day The day on which the Commission makes its decision on the access undertaking under subsection 44ZZA(3)

The day the Tribunal makes its decision under section 44K on the review

Stopping the clock by agreement (4) The Commission and the parties to the access dispute may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (5) [Publication of agreement] The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement. Deemed final determination (6) If the Commission does not publish under section 44ZNB a written report about a final determination within the expected period, it is taken, immediately after the end of the expected period, to have: (a) made a final determination that does not impose any obligations on the parties or alter any obligations (if any) that exist at that time between the parties; and (b) published a written report about the final determination under section 44ZNB. [S 44XA subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 50; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 69]

44Y

Commission may terminate arbitration in certain cases

(1) [Reasons for terminating arbitration] The Commission may at any time terminate an arbitration (without making a final determination) if it thinks that: (a) the notification of the dispute was vexatious; or (b) the subject matter of the dispute is trivial, misconceived or lacking in substance; or (c) the party who notified the dispute has not engaged in negotiations in good faith; or (d) access to the service should continue to be governed by an existing contract between the provider and the third party. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 70]

(2) [Additional reasons for terminating arbitration] In addition, if the dispute is about varying an existing determination, the Commission may terminate the arbitration if it thinks there is no sufficient reason why the previous determination should not continue to have effect in its present form. [S 44Y am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

306

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

s 44ZC

44YA Commission must terminate arbitration if declaration varied or set aside by Tribunal If the Commission is arbitrating a dispute in relation to a declared service and the Tribunal sets aside or varies the declaration in relation to the service under section 44K, the Commission must terminate the arbitration. [S 44YA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 16]

SUBDIVISION D – PROCEDURE IN ARBITRATIONS 44Z

Constitution of Commission for conduct of arbitration

For the purposes of a particular arbitration, the Commission is to be constituted by 2 or more members of the Commission nominated in writing by the Chairperson. [S 44Z insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZA

Member of the Commission presiding at an arbitration

(1) [Chairperson presides] Subject to subsection (2), the Chairperson is to preside at an arbitration. (2) [Where Chairperson not Commission member] If the Chairperson is not a member of the Commission as constituted under section 44Z in relation to a particular arbitration, the Chairperson must nominate a member of the Commission to preside at the arbitration. [S 44ZA insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZB

Reconstitution of Commission

(1) [Member unavailable for arbitration] This section applies if a member of the Commission who is one of the members who constitute the Commission for the purposes of a particular arbitration: (a) stops being a member of the Commission; or (b) for any reason, is not available for the purpose of the arbitration. (2) [Finishing the arbitration] The Chairperson must either: (a) direct that the Commission is to be constituted for the purposes of finishing the arbitration by the remaining member or members; or (b) direct that the Commission is to be constituted for that purpose by the remaining member or members together with one or more other members of the Commission. (3) [Records of proceedings] If a direction under subsection (2) is given, the Commission as constituted in accordance with the direction must continue and finish the arbitration and may, for that purpose, have regard to any record of the proceedings of the arbitration made by the Commission as previously constituted. [S 44ZB insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

Determination of questions

If the Commission is constituted for an arbitration by 2 or more members of the Commission, any question before the Commission is to be decided: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—according to the opinion of the majority of those members; or (b) if the members are evenly divided on the question—according to the opinion of the member who is presiding. [S 44ZC insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

307

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

44ZC

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44Z' 44ZD

Hearing to be in private

(1) [Privacy for access dispute arbitrations] Subject to subsection (2), an arbitration hearing for an access dispute is to be in private. (2) [Public hearings] If the parties agree, an arbitration hearing or part of an arbitration hearing may be conducted in public. (3) [Written directions] The member of the Commission who is presiding at an arbitration hearing that is conducted in private may give written directions as to the persons who may be present. (4) [Commercial confidentiality] In giving directions under subsection (3), the member presiding must have regard to the wishes of the parties and the need for commercial confidentiality. [S 44ZD insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZE

Right to representation

In an arbitration hearing before the Commission under this Part, a party may appear in person or be represented by someone else. [S 44ZE insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZF

Procedure of Commission

(1) [Obligations and prerogatives] In an arbitration hearing about an access dispute, the Commission: (a) is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence; and (b) must act as speedily as a proper consideration of the dispute allows, having regard to the need to carefully and quickly inquire into and investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits, and fair settlement, of the dispute; and (c) may inform itself of any matter relevant to the dispute in any way it thinks appropriate. (2) [Commission may determine presentation periods] The Commission may determine the periods that are reasonably necessary for the fair and adequate presentation of the respective cases of the parties to an access dispute, and may require that the cases be presented within those periods. (3) [Written and oral evidence] The Commission may require evidence or argument to be presented in writing, and may decide the matters on which it will hear oral evidence or argument. (4) [Means of communication] The Commission may determine that an arbitration hearing is to be conducted by: (a) telephone; or (b) closed circuit television; or (c) any other means of communication. [S 44ZF insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZG

Particular powers of Commission

(1) [Commission may give directions] The Commission may do any of the following things for the purpose of arbitrating an access dispute: (a) give a direction in the course of, or for the purposes of, an arbitration hearing; (b) hear and determine the arbitration in the absence of a person who has been summoned or served with a notice to appear; (c) sit at any place;

308

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

s 44ZI

(d) adjourn to any time and place; (e) refer any matter to an expert and accept the expert’s report as evidence; (f) generally give all such directions, and do all such things, as are necessary or expedient for the speedy hearing and determination of the access dispute. (2) [Contempt of court] A person must not do any act or thing in relation to the arbitration of an access dispute that would be a contempt of court if the Commission were a court of record. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months. (3) [Effect of subs (1)] Subsection (1) has effect subject to any other provision of this Part and subject to the regulations. (4) [Order of confidentiality] The Commission may give an oral or written order to a person not to divulge or communicate to anyone else specified information that was given to the person in the course of an arbitration unless the person has the Commission’s permission. (5) [Penalty for contravention] A person who contravenes an order under subsection (4) is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months. [S 44ZG insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZH

Power to take evidence on oath or affirmation

(1) [Commission member may administer oath] The Commission may take evidence on oath or affirmation and for that purpose a member of the Commission may administer an oath or affirmation. (2) [Presiding member may summon person] The member of the Commission who is presiding may summon a person to appear before the Commission to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. (3) [Limitation of powers] The powers in this section may be exercised only for the purposes of arbitrating an access dispute. [S 44ZH insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6E(1) provides that a summons under s 44ZH(2) served on a person to appear before the ACCC for the purposes of arbitrating an access dispute must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form AA.]

44ZI

Failing to attend as a witness

[S 44ZI insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6E(2) provides that a copy of the summons served on a person to appear before the ACCC for the purposes of arbitrating an access dispute must be delivered personally to the witness for s 44ZI.]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

309

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

A person who is served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness before the Commission must not, without reasonable excuse: (a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or (b) fail to appear and report himself or herself from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by a member of the Commission. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZJ 44ZJ

Failing to answer questions etc

(1) [Requirements of witnesses] A person appearing as a witness before the Commission must not, without reasonable excuse: (a) refuse or fail to be sworn or to make an affirmation; or (b) refuse or fail to answer a question that the person is required to answer by the Commission; or (c) refuse or fail to produce a document that he or she was required to produce by a summons under this Part served on him or her as prescribed. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months. (2) [Reasonable excuse] It is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (1) for an individual to refuse or fail to answer a question or produce a document on the ground that the answer or the production of the document might tend to incriminate the individual or to expose the individual to a penalty. This subsection does not limit what is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (1). [S 44ZJ insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZK

Intimidation etc

A person must not: (a) threaten, intimidate or coerce another person; or (b) cause or procure damage, loss or disadvantage to another person; because that other person: (c) proposes to produce, or has produced, documents to the Commission; or (d) proposes to appear or has appeared as a witness before the Commission. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. [S 44ZK insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZL

Party may request Commission to treat material as confidential

(1) [Confidential commercial information] A party to an arbitration hearing may: (a) inform the Commission that, in the party’s opinion, a specified part of a document contains confidential commercial information; and (b) request the Commission not to give a copy of that part to another party. (2) [Opportunity to object to confidentiality request] On receiving a request, the Commission must: (a) inform the other party or parties that the request has been made and of the general nature of the matters to which the relevant part of the document relates; and (b) ask the other party or parties whether there is any objection to the Commission complying with the request. (3) [Reasons for objection] If there is an objection to the Commission complying with a request, the party objecting may inform the Commission of its objection and of the reasons for it. (4) [Discretion of Commission] After considering: (a) a request; and (b) any objection; and (c) any further submissions that any party has made in relation to the request; the Commission may decide not to give to the other party or parties a copy of so much of the document as contains confidential commercial information that the Commission thinks should not be so given. [S 44ZL insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

310

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services 44ZM

s 44ZNA

Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to the Commission in an arbitration

Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to the Commission, as constituted for an arbitration. [S 44ZM insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZN

Parties to pay costs of an arbitration

The regulations may provide for the Commission to: (a) charge the parties to an arbitration for its costs in conducting the arbitration; and (b) apportion the charge between the parties. [S 44ZN insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: reg 6F prescribes pre-hearing fees ranging from $2,170-$10,850 (payable by person who notified access dispute) and a hearing fee of $4,340 per day (apportioned between parties) that the ACCC may charge for its costs in conducting an arbitration of an access dispute for s 44ZN.]

44ZNA

Joint arbitration hearings

Joint arbitration hearing (1) If: (a) the Commission is arbitrating 2 or more access disputes at a particular time; and (b) one or more matters are common to those disputes; the Chairperson may, by notice in writing, decide that the Commission must hold a joint arbitration hearing in respect of such of those disputes (the nominated disputes) as are specified in the notice. (2) [Efficient and timely resolution] The Chairperson may do so only if he or she considers this would be likely to result in the nominated disputes being resolved in a more efficient and timely manner. Consulting the parties (3) Before doing so, the Chairperson must give each party to the arbitration of each nominated dispute a notice in writing: (a) specifying what the Chairperson is proposing to do; and (b) inviting the party to make a written submission on the proposal to the Chairperson within 14 days after the notice is given. (4) [Commission to consider any submission] The Chairperson must have regard to any submission so made in deciding whether to do so. He or she may have regard to any other matter he or she considers relevant. Directions to presiding member (5) The Chairperson may, for the purposes of the conduct of the joint arbitration hearing, give written directions to the member of the Commission presiding at the hearing.

(6) Sections 44Z to 44ZN apply to the joint arbitration hearing in a corresponding way to the way in which they apply to a particular arbitration. Note: For example, the Chairperson would be required to nominate in writing 1 or more members of the Commission to constitute the Commission for the purposes of the joint arbitration hearing.

Record of proceedings etc (7) The Commission as constituted for the purposes of the joint arbitration hearing may have regard to any record of the proceedings of the arbitration of any nominated dispute.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

311

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Constitution and procedure of Commission

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZNA (8) [Commission may regard joint arbitration proceedings] The Commission as constituted for the purposes of the arbitration of each nominated dispute may, for the purposes of making a determination in relation to that arbitration: (a) have regard to any record of the proceedings of the joint arbitration hearing; and (b) adopt any findings of fact made by the Commission as constituted for the purposes of the joint arbitration hearing. Legislation Act 2003 (9) The following are not legislative instruments: (a) a notice made under subsection (1); (b) a direction given under subsection (5). [Subs (9) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 items 132 and 133, with effect from 5 Mar 2016] [S 44ZNA am Act 126 of 2015; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 71]

SUBDIVISION DA – ARBITRATION REPORTS [Subdiv DA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 72]

44ZNB

Arbitration reports

(1) [Written report of final determination] The Commission must prepare a written report about a final determination it makes. It must publish, by electronic or other means, the report. (2) [Report may include part of determination] The report may include the whole or a part of the determination and the reasons for the determination or the part of the determination. Report must include certain matters (3) The report must set out the following matters: (a) the principles the Commission applied in making the determination; (b) the methodologies the Commission applied in making the determination and the reasons for the choice of the asset valuation methodology; (c) how the Commission took into account the matters mentioned in subsection 44X(1) in making the determination; (d) any matter the Commission took into account under subsection 44X(2) in making the determination and the reasons for doing so; (e) any information provided by the parties to the arbitration that was relevant to those principles or methodologies; Note:

Confidentiality issues are dealt with in subsections (5) to (7).

(f)

any implications the Commission considers the determination has for persons seeking access to the service or to similar services in the future; (g) if applicable—the reasons for the determination dealing with matters that were already agreed between the parties to the arbitration at the time the access dispute was notified; (h) if applicable—the reasons for the access dispute being the subject of a joint arbitration hearing under section 44ZNA despite the objection of a party to the arbitration. Report may include other matters (4) The report may include any other matter that the Commission considers relevant.

312

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

s 44ZO

Confidentiality (5) The Commission must not include in the report any information the Commission decided not to give to a party to the arbitration under section 44ZL. (6) [Notice in writing] Before publishing the report, the Commission must give each party to the arbitration a notice in writing: (a) specifying what the Commission is proposing to publish; and (b) inviting the party to make a written submission to the Commission within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the party considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (7) [Commission to consider any submission] The Commission must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. Legislation Act 2003 (8) A report prepared under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (8) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 items 134 and 135, with effect from 5 Mar 2016] [S 44ZNB am Act 126 of 2015; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 72]

SUBDIVISION E – EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS 44ZO

Operation of final determinations

(1) [When determination has effect] If none of the parties to the arbitration applies to the Tribunal under section 44ZP for a review of the Commission’s final determination, the determination has effect 21 days after the determination is made. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 73]

(2) [Where party applies for review] If a party to the arbitration applies to the Tribunal under section 44ZP for a review of the Commission’s final determination, the determination is of no effect until the Tribunal makes its determination on the review. [Subs (2) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 74]

Backdating (3) Any or all of the provisions of a final determination may be expressed to apply from a specified day that is earlier than the day on which it takes effect under subsection (1) or (2). Example: The Commission makes a final determination on 1 August. It takes effect under subsection (1) on 22 August, but it is expressed to apply from 1 July.

(4) [When determination has effect] The specified day must not be earlier than the following day: (a) if the third party and provider commenced negotiations on access to the service after the service became a declared service—the day on which the negotiations commenced; (b) if the third party and provider commenced negotiations on access to the service before the service became a declared service—the day on which the declaration began to operate. However, the specified day cannot be a day on which the third party did not have access to the service. [Subs (4) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

313

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (3) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZO Operation of interim determination (5) If a provision of a final determination is expressed to apply from a day when an interim determination was in effect, the provision of the final determination prevails over the interim determination to the extent set out in the final determination. [Subs (5) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

Interest (6) If: (a) a provision of a final determination is covered by subsection (3); and (b) the provision requires a party to the determination (the first party) to pay money to another party; the determination may require the first party to pay interest to the other party, at the rate specified in the determination, on the whole or a part of the money, for the whole or a part of the period: (c) beginning on the day specified under subsection (3); and (d) ending on the day on which the determination takes effect under subsection (1) or (2). [Subs (6) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

Guidelines (7) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (3) or (6), the Commission must have regard to any guidelines in force under subsection (8). It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [Subs (7) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

(8) [Commission to determine guidelines by legislative instrument] The Commission must, by legislative instrument, determine guidelines for the purposes of subsection (7). [Subs (8) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75]

(9) [6 months to make first set of guidelines] The Commission must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the first set of guidelines under subsection (8) is made within 6 months after the commencement of this subsection. [Subs (9) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 75] [S 44ZO am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 73; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZOA

Effect and duration of interim determinations

(1) [Date of effect: interim determination] An interim determination takes effect on the day specified in the determination. (2) [Duration of interim determination] Unless sooner revoked, an interim determination continues in effect until the earliest of the following: (a) the notification of the access dispute is withdrawn under section 44T; (b) a final determination relating to the access dispute takes effect; Note: A backdated subsection 44ZO(5).

(c)

final

determination

may

prevail

over

an

interim

determination:

see

an interim determination made by the Tribunal (while reviewing a final determination relating to the access dispute) takes effect.

[S 44ZOA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 76]

314

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

s 44ZP

SUBDIVISION F – REVIEW OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS [Subdiv F heading subst Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 77]

44ZP

Review by Tribunal

(1) [Application for review] A party to a final determination may apply in writing to the Tribunal for a review of the determination. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 78]

(2) [21 days to apply for review] The application must be made within 21 days after the Commission made the final determination. [Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 79]

(3) [Re-arbitration] A review by the Tribunal is a re-arbitration of the access dispute based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review: see section 44ZZOA. [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 51 and 52; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 80]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Commission] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commission. (5) [Member can request Commission assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Commission to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 54]

(5A) [Member may require Commission to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Commission to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 54]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the other party or parties to the final determination; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (6) [Determination may be affirmed or varied] The Tribunal may either affirm or vary the Commission’s determination. (7) [Determination by Tribunal is determination of Commission] The determination, as affirmed or varied by the Tribunal, is to be taken to be a determination of the Commission for all purposes of this Part (except this section). (8) [Decision effective on date of making] The decision of the Tribunal takes effect from when it is made. [S 44ZP am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 28C(1) provides that an application for a review of a final access determination must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form L;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

315

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 54]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZP

[CCA.44ZP.20]

• reg 28C(2) requires the applicant to serve a copy of the application on each party to the determination; • reg 28D states each party to the determination must file a notice about their intention to participate in a review within 7 days of service; • reg 28E enables the Australian Competition Tribunal to permit persons to intervene in a review; • regs 28F – 28M and 28P set out the structure and procedure of the Tribunal in a review hearing; • reg 28N(1) provides that a summons for the purposes of a review hearing must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form K; • reg 28N(2) requires a copy of the summons to be delivered personally to the witness; and • reg 28Q(2) states that regs 22 and 22A do not apply to a s 44ZP review.]

SECTION 44ZP COMMENTARY Practice and procedure: application for review ........................................................................... [CCA.44ZP.20] Reviews: role of the Tribunal ....................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZP.40] Status of ACCC determination ..................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZP.60] Review of pricing determinations ................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZP.80]

[CCA.44ZP.20]

Practice and procedure: application for review

Any party to an arbitration dissatisfied with the ACCC’s decision may apply to the Australian Competition Tribunal to have the decision reviewed. However, this only applies to final access determinations, not to interim determinations. The application to the Tribunal must be made within 21 days of the ACCC’s final determination. [CCA.44ZP.40]

Reviews: role of the Tribunal

A review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter entirely, although in this case the review – a “re-arbitration” – is based on the information, reports, etc specified in s 44ZZOA. The provisions governing Tribunal re-consideration of other decisions under the Act do not apply: s 44ZQ. The function of the Tribunal is to review, by way of reconsideration, the ACCC’s decision. But it would appear that it is not open to the parties to put material before the Tribunal which was not before the ACCC, although the Tribunal does have power to take evidence on oath: ss 44ZP(4), 44ZH. It is not the Tribunal’s task to review the ACCC’s decision in the sense of deciding whether it was right or wrong. The Tribunal must engage in a re-arbitration in the fullest sense and reach its own conclusions on the material before it. It must make its own findings of fact. It must reach its own decision: see Re Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1978) 17 ALR 281; [1978] ATPR 40-058; Re 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-357; Re Media Council of Australia (No 2) (1987) 88 FLR 1; 82 ALR 115; 11 IPR 162; [1987] ATPR 40-774. The Tribunal is under a duty to act judicially in the sense that it must act with judicial fairness and impartiality. It must determine an application for review on the material placed before it at the hearing and within the context of matters which can properly be seen to be in issue between the parties or which the Tribunal raises itself in the course of the hearing as matters which it considers should be dealt with: see Re Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1978) 17 ALR 281; [1978] ATPR 40-058. [CCA.44ZP.60]

Status of ACCC determination

The duty of the Tribunal is to review the ACCC’s decision, not its reasons. It will seldom be profitable for the Tribunal to analyse the ACCC’s reasons and indicate those which it accepts and those which it rejects. The main value of those reasons is to alert the Tribunal, at the commencement hearing, to the issues likely to be raised before it: see Re Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012.

316

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 3 – Access to declared services

[CCA.44ZQ.20]

s 44ZR

The findings or conclusions which the ACCC has made or expressed in its published reasons are not, in themselves, ordinarily of probative value on the hearing by the Tribunal of an application for review: see Re Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1978) 17 ALR 281; [1978] ATPR 40-058. [CCA.44ZP.80]

Review of pricing determinations

Access pricing will often be a matter on which access providers and access seekers are unable to agree. While it is not within the scope of this book to deal with this subject in detail, reference should be made to Re East Australian Pipeline Ltd [2004] ACompT 8; [2004] ATPR 42-006, which demonstrates the approach the Tribunal takes in pricing disputes over access pricing to infrastructure. Note, however, ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 83; (2006) 152 FCR 33; 232 ALR 153; [2006] ATPR 42-124. 44ZQ

Provisions that do not apply in relation to a Tribunal review

Sections 37, 39 to 43 (inclusive) and 103 to 110 (inclusive) do not apply in relation to a review by the Tribunal of a final determination made by the Commission. [S 44ZQ am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 81; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44ZQ COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZQ.20]

Outline

The exclusion of s 37 means that for access arbitration reviews the Tribunal does not need to be constituted by a presidential member and two other members. The exclusion of ss 39 – 43 is, for the main part, a consequence of the exclusion of s 37, although the exclusion of s 40 which deals with disclosure of conflicts of interest by Tribunal members is curious. The exclusion of ss 103 – 110 means that the powers of the Tribunal in undertaking a review of an access determination are to be found in Pt IIIA rather than Pt IX, and limited to those explicitly stated in Pt IIIA. 44ZR

Appeals to Federal Court from determinations of the Tribunal

(2) [Requirements of appeal] An appeal by a person under subsection (1) must be instituted: (a) not later than the 28th day after the day on which the decision of the Tribunal is made or within such further period as the Federal Court (whether before or after the end of that day) allows; and (b) in accordance with the Rules of Court made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. (3) [Appeal must be heard] The Federal Court must hear and determine the appeal and may make any order that it thinks appropriate. (4) [Federal Court orders] The orders that may be made by the Federal Court on appeal include (but are not limited to): (a) an order affirming or setting aside the decision of the Tribunal; and (b) an order remitting the matter to be decided again by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions of the Federal Court. [S 44ZR insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

317

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(1) [Appeals on questions of law] A party to an arbitration may appeal to the Federal Court, on a question of law, from the decision of the Tribunal under section 44ZP.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZS 44ZS

Operation and implementation of a determination that is subject to appeal

(1) [Operation of decision not affected by appeal] Subject to this section, the fact that an appeal is instituted in the Federal Court from a decision of the Tribunal does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent action being taken to implement the decision. (2) [Stay of execution] If an appeal is instituted in the Federal Court from a decision of the Tribunal, the Federal Court or a judge of the Federal Court may make any orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision of the Tribunal that the Federal Court or judge thinks appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the appeal. (3) [First order may be varied or revoked] If an order is in force under subsection (2) (including an order previously varied under this subsection), the Federal Court or a judge of the Federal Court may make an order varying or revoking the first-mentioned order. (4) [Effect of order] An order in force under subsection (2) (including an order previously varied under subsection (3)): (a) is subject to any conditions that are specified in the order; and (b) has effect until: (i) the end of any period for the operation of the order that is specified in the order; or (ii) the giving of a decision on the appeal; whichever is earlier. [S 44ZS insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZT

Transmission of documents

If an appeal is instituted in the Federal Court: (a) the Tribunal must send to the Federal Court all documents that were before the Tribunal in connection with the matter to which the appeal relates; and (b) at the conclusion of the proceedings before the Federal Court in relation to the appeal, the Federal Court must return the documents to the Tribunal. [S 44ZT insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SUBDIVISION G – VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF DETERMINATIONS [Subdiv G heading subst Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 82]

44ZU

Variation of final determinations

(1) [Application to vary final determination] The Commission may vary a final determination on the application of any party to the determination. However, it cannot vary the final determination if any other party objects. Note: If the parties cannot agree on a variation, a new access dispute can be notified under section 44S. [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 83 and 84]

(2) [Application of ss 44W and 44X] Sections 44W and 44X apply to a variation under this section as if: (a) an access dispute arising out of the final determination had been notified when the application was made to the Commission for the variation of the determination; and (b) the variation were the making of a final determination in the terms of the varied determination. [Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 85 and 86] [S 44ZU am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 83; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

318

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 4 – Registered contracts for access to declared services 44ZUA

s 44ZW

Variation and revocation of interim determinations

(1) [Power to vary or revoke interim determination] The Commission may, by writing, vary or revoke an interim determination. (2) [Where Commission must revoke interim determination] The Commission must, by writing, revoke an interim determination if requested to do so by the parties to the determination. [S 44ZUA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 87]

DIVISION 4 – REGISTERED CONTRACTS FOR ACCESS TO DECLARED SERVICES 44ZV

Constitutional limits on operation of this Division

This Division does not apply to a contract unless: (a) the contract provides for access to a declared service; and (b) the contract was made after the service was declared; and (c) the parties to the contract are the provider of the service and a third party; and (d) at least one of the following conditions is met: (i) the provider is a corporation (or a partnership or joint venture consisting wholly of corporations); (ii) the third party is a corporation; (iii) the access is (or would be) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce. [S 44ZV insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZW

Registration of contract

(1) [Decision to register contract] On application by all the parties to a contract, the Commission must: (a) register the contract by entering the following details on a public register: (i) the names of the parties to the contract; (ii) the service to which the contract relates; (iii) the date on which the contract was made; or (b) decide not to register the contract. (2) [Considerations for registration] In deciding whether to register a contract, the Commission must take into account: (aa) the objects of this Part; and (a) the public interest, including the public interest in having competition in markets (whether or not in Australia); and (b) the interests of all persons who have rights to use the service to which the contract relates. (2A) [When contracts not to be registered] The Commission must not register a contract if it deals with a matter or matters relating to access to the service that are dealt with in an access undertaking that is in operation. [Subs (2A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 89]

(3) [Publication] The Commission must publish a decision not to register a contract.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

319

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (2) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 88]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZW (4) [Reasons for registration denial] If the Commission publishes a decision not to register a contract, it must give the parties to the contract reasons for the decision when it publishes the decision. [S 44ZW am Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 6G prescribes the types of information which must be included in an application for registration of a contract for access to a declared service and a $5,425 fee payable to the ACCC at the time of making the application; • reg 6H provides that a person may inspect the public register of registered contracts kept under s 44ZW and obtain copies of documents on that register provided a written request is made in person at the relevant office and a fee is paid; • reg 6I provides that a certified copy of a document contained in a Pt IIIA register can be relied upon as evidence of that document; • reg 28(1) and (2) prescribes copying fees for a requested document; and • reg 28(3) entitles a person appearing before the ACCC, without payment of a fee, to receive one certified copy of a document relating to the proceeding or matter.]

44ZX

Review of decision not to register contract

(1) [Application for review] If the Commission decides not to register a contract, a party to the contract may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] An application for review must be made within 21 days after publication of the Commission’s decision. (3) [Re-consideration] The review by the Tribunal is a re-consideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 55 and 56; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 90]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Commission] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commission. (5) [Member can request Commission assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Commission to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 57]

(5A) [Member may require Commission to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Commission to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 57]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the other party or parties to the contract; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and

320

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.44ZZ.20] (b)

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 5 – Hindering access to declared services

s 44ZZ

publish, by electronic or other means, the notice; and

[Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 57]

(6) [Decision of Tribunal] The Tribunal may either: (a) affirm the Commission’s decision; or (b) register the contract. [S 44ZX am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 20A(3) provides that an application to the Australian Competition Tribunal under s 44ZX for review of a decision of the ACCC not to register a contract must be in accordance with Sch 1 Form JC; and • reg 22B(4) enables any other party to the contract to participate in a s 44ZX review.]

44ZY

Effect of registration of contract

The parties to a contract that has been registered: (a) may enforce the contract under Division 7 as if the contract were a determination of the Commission under section 44V and they were parties to the determination; and (b) cannot enforce the contract by any other means. [S 44ZY insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

DIVISION 5 – HINDERING ACCESS TO DECLARED SERVICES 44ZZ

Prohibition on hindering access to declared services

(1) [Service access must not be hindered] The provider or a user of a service to which a third party has access under a determination, or a body corporate related to the provider or a user of the service, must not engage in conduct for the purpose of preventing or hindering the third party’s access to the service under the determination. (2) [Establishing purpose of conduct] A person may be taken to have engaged in conduct for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) even though, after all the evidence has been considered, the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the person or from other relevant circumstances. This subsection does not limit the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of subsection (1). (3) [Definition: user] In this section, a user of a service includes a person who has a right to use the service. [S 44ZZ insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44ZZ COMMENTARY Concepts: preventing or hindering

The term “preventing” is well understood and needs no explanation. The term “hindering” means in any way affecting usual access to an appreciable extent: see Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers (WA) v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; 48 IR 452; 114 ALR 551; [1993] ATPR 41-245; Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 32; 65 ALJR 262; 99 ALR 275; [1991] ATPR 41-098, Mason CJ said (at CLR 45). Conduct hindering or preventing access can involve conduct engaged in by threat and verbal intimidation as well as by physical interference: see ABC v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129; 29 ALR 228; [1980] ATPR 40-154; [1980] FCA 33.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

321

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[CCA.44ZZ.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZA

DIVISION 6 – ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND ACCESS CODES FOR SERVICES [Div 6 heading subst Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 91]

SUBDIVISION A – GIVING OF ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND ACCESS CODES [Subdiv A heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 91]

44ZZA

Access undertakings by providers

(1) [Written undertaking] A person who is, or expects to be, the provider of a service may give a written undertaking to the Commission in connection with the provision of access to the service. Note: The following are examples of the kinds of things that might be dealt with in the undertaking: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

terms and conditions of access to the service; procedures for determining terms and conditions of access to the service; an obligation on the provider not to hinder access to the service; an obligation on the provider to implement a particular business structure; an obligation on the provider to provide information to the Commission or to another person; an obligation on the provider to comply with decisions of the Commission or another person in relation to matters specified in the undertaking; (g) an obligation on the provider to seek a variation of the undertaking in specified circumstances. [Subs (1) subst Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

(2) [Expiry date] The undertaking must specify the expiry date of the undertaking. (3) [Commission considerations] The Commission may accept the undertaking, if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the following matters: (aa) the objects of this Part; (ab) the pricing principles specified in section 44ZZCA; (a) the legitimate business interests of the provider; (b) the public interest, including the public interest in having competition in markets (whether or not in Australia); (c) the interests of persons who might want access to the service; (d) [Repealed] (da) whether the undertaking is in accordance with an access code that applies to the service; (e) any other matters that the Commission thinks are relevant. Note 1: There are grounds on which the Commission may reject the undertaking if it contains, or should contain, fixed principles: see section 44ZZAAB. Note 2: The Commission may defer consideration of the undertaking if it is also arbitrating an access dispute: see section 44ZZCB. [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 4; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 92–94; Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

(3AA) [Where undertaking not to be accepted] The Commission must not accept the undertaking if a decision of the Commonwealth Minister is in force under section 44N that a regime established by a State or Territory for access to the service is an effective access regime. [Subs (3AA) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 95]

322

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

s 44ZZA

(3AB) [Undertaking rejected where it contains prejudicial amendments] The Commission may reject the undertaking if it incorporates one or more amendments (see subsection 44ZZAAA(5)) and the Commission is satisfied that the amendment or amendments are of a kind, are made at a time, or are made in a manner that: (a) unduly prejudices anyone the Commission considers has a material interest in the undertaking; or (b) unduly delays the process for considering the undertaking. [Subs (3AB) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 4 item 1]

(3A) [Conditions on undertakings] The Commission must not accept the undertaking unless: (a) the provider, or proposed provider, is a corporation (or a partnership or joint venture consisting wholly of corporations); or (b) the undertaking provides for access only to third parties that are corporations; or (c) the undertaking provides for access that is (or would be) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce. [Subs (3A) insrt Act 69 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1]

(4) [Repealed] [Subs (4) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 96]

(4A) [Repealed] [Subs (4A) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 96; insrt Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 97]

(6) [Disputes] If the undertaking provides for disputes about the undertaking to be resolved by the Commission, then the Commission may resolve the disputes in accordance with the undertaking. (6A) [Performance of functions or powers] If the undertaking provides for the Commission to perform functions or exercise powers in relation to the undertaking, the Commission may perform those functions and exercise those powers. If the Commission decides to do so, it must do so in accordance with the undertaking. [Subs (6A) subst Act 69 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2; insrt Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5]

(6B) [Commission may accept undertaking despite s 44LG decision] The Commission may accept the undertaking even if the service is the subject of a decision by the designated Minister under section 44LG that the service is ineligible to be a declared service. (7) [Withdrawal or variation of undertaking] The provider may: (a) withdraw the application given under subsection (1) at any time before the Commission makes a decision on whether to accept the application; and (b) withdraw or vary the undertaking at any time after it has been accepted by the Commission, but only with the consent of the Commission. The Commission may consent to a variation of the undertaking if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the matters in subsection (3). Note 1: There are time limits that apply to a decision of the Commission under this section: see section 44ZZBC. Note 2: The Commission may request information and invite public submissions in relation to its decision: see sections 44ZZBCA and 44ZZBD.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

323

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (6B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 2 item 10]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZA

[CCA.44ZZA.20]

Note 3: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44ZZBE. [Subs (7) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 4 item 2; Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 58 and 59; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 98 and 99] [S 44ZZA am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; Act 69 of 2000; Act 28 of 1997; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SECTION 44ZZA COMMENTARY Outline ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZA.20] ACCC guide .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZA.40] Role of ACCC ............................................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZA.60]

[CCA.44ZZA.20]

Outline

This section enables the ACCC to accept access undertakings from any person who owns infrastructure to which a third party might seek access. The section sets out the terms and conditions on which the ACCC might accept such an undertaking, but the ACCC can only do so if the service to which the undertaking relates has not already been declared by the Minister for access purposes: see s 44ZZB. The process followed by the ACCC in assessing proposed undertakings is essentially a public process. • On receipt of an application the ACCC publishes the application and seeks submissions on it. • Once the submissions have been assessed the ACCC will prepare and publish a draft decision. In doing so the ACCC often retains experts in the particular area to assist it in its consideration of the matter. Anyone affected by the matter is entitled to make a submission on the draft decision. • The ACCC considers all submissions and publishes a final decision. Information necessary to enable the ACCC to evaluate an undertaking or submissions in relation to it is often commercially sensitive. The ACCC will accept such information on a confidential basis, but requires a summary of the information for the public register. In considering whether or not to accept an undertaking, the ACCC takes into account: • the object of promoting economically efficient use of infrastructure and providing guiding principles to encourage consistent access regulation; • any pricing principles promulgated by the Minister; • the legitimate business interests of the applicant, particularly in having certainty in the terms on which third parties will have access to its facilities and the applicant’s right to a reasonable return on its investment; • the public interest, including but not limited to considerations related to fostering competition; • the interests of those who might want access; • whether there is already an access regime covering the service; and • whether the undertaking is in accordance with any applicable access code. Key issues on which the ACCC has tended to focus in assessing these undertakings have included: • the proposed asset valuation methodology used in determining pricing; • the proposed rate of return used in determining pricing; • the level and structure of tariffs; • the reasonableness of volume forecasts; • incentive mechanisms to encourage use of the facility; and • proposed dispute resolution processes. Decisions to accept undertakings are not perpetual. The ACCC must set an expiry date on the undertaking.

324

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services [CCA.44ZZA.60] Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

s 44ZZAAA

Undertakings may confer power on the ACCC to make decisions and resolve disputes, in which case the ACCC is entitled to do so. Undertakings may be varied by the party giving them, but only with the consent of the ACCC. [CCA.44ZZA.40]

ACCC guide

The ACCC has published A Guide to Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act (ACCC, 1999) providing a draft access undertakings guide. The guide includes the ACCC’s views on what should be included in an access undertaking. [CCA.44ZZA.60]

Role of ACCC

In assessing a proposed access arrangement and deciding whether to approve it or not, the ACCC’s role is to determine whether or not the arrangement proposed meets the requirements of the Act. The ACCC cannot decline to accept an access arrangement simply because it prefers a different access arrangement thought to better achieve the statutory objectives: Re GasNet Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd [2003] ACompT 6; [2004] ATPR 41-978; ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal (2006) 152 FCR 33; 232 ALR 153; [2006] FCAFC 83; [2006] ATPR 42-124. 44ZZAAA

Proposed amendments to access undertakings

Commission may give an amendment notice in relation to an undertaking (1) Before deciding whether to accept an undertaking given to it under subsection 44ZZA(1) by a person who is, or expects to be, the provider of a service, the Commission may give the person an amendment notice in relation to the undertaking. (2) [Meaning of amendment notice] An amendment notice is a notice in writing that specifies: (a) the nature of the amendment or amendments (the proposed amendment or amendments) that the Commission proposes be made to the undertaking; and (b) the Commission’s reasons for the proposed amendment or amendments; and (c) the period (the response period) within which the person may respond to the notice, which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice was given to the person. (3) [Publication of amendment notice] The Commission may publish, by electronic or other means, the amendment notice. (4) [Commission may issue multiple amendment notices] The Commission may give more than one amendment notice in relation to an undertaking. Person may give a revised undertaking in response to notice

(6) [Commission must not accept revised undertaking] If the revised undertaking incorporates one or more amendments that the Commission considers are not of the nature proposed in the amendment notice and do not address the reasons for the proposed amendments given in the amendment notice, the Commission must not accept the revised undertaking and must return it to the person within 21 days of receiving it. (7) [Revised undertaking deemed to be s 44ZZA undertaking] If the person gives a revised undertaking under subsection (5) and the revised undertaking is not returned to the person under subsection (6), the revised undertaking is taken, after the time it is given to the Commission, to be the undertaking given under section 44ZZA for the purposes of this Part.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

325

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(5) If a person receives an amendment notice, the person may, within the response period, respond to the notice by giving a revised undertaking to the Commission that incorporates one or more amendments.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZAAA (8) [Person deemed not to have agreed if no response] The person is taken to have not agreed to the proposed amendment or amendments if the person does not respond within the response period. Commission not required to accept revised undertaking (9) The Commission is not required to accept the revised undertaking under section 44ZZA. No duty to propose amendments (10) In considering whether to accept an undertaking, the Commission does not have a duty to consider whether to propose one or more amendments to the undertaking. Notice of proposed amendment is not a legislative instrument (11) A notice given under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. [S 44ZZAAA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 4 item 3]

44ZZAAB

Access undertakings containing fixed principles

Access undertakings may contain fixed principles (1) An access undertaking given to the Commission under subsection 44ZZA(1) may include one or more terms that, under the undertaking, are fixed for a specified period. (2) [Meaning of fixed principles] Each of the terms is a fixed principle and the specified period is a fixed period. Different periods may be specified for different fixed principles. (3) [Term of fixed period] The fixed period must: (a) start: (i) when the access undertaking comes into operation; or (ii) at a later time ascertained in accordance with the undertaking; and (b) extend beyond the expiry date of the undertaking. Consideration of fixed principles (4) The Commission may reject the undertaking if it: (a) includes a term that is not a fixed principle and that the Commission considers should be a fixed principle; or (b) includes a fixed principle that the Commission considers should not be fixed; or (c) includes a fixed principle that the Commission considers should be fixed for a period that is different from the period specified in the undertaking. However, the Commission must not reject the undertaking solely on the basis that it is consistent with a fixed principle that is included in the undertaking in compliance with subsection (6). Fixed principles must be carried over to later undertakings (5) Subsection (6) applies if: (a) the Commission accepts an undertaking (the earlier undertaking) in connection with the provision of access to a service that includes a fixed principle; and (b) an undertaking (the later undertaking) is given to the Commission in connection with the provision of access to the service within the fixed period for the fixed principle; and (c) at the time the later undertaking is given: (i) the fixed principle has not been revoked under subsection (7); and (ii) the earlier undertaking has not been varied under subsection 44ZZA(7) so that the fixed principle is no longer a term of the earlier undertaking.

326

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

s 44ZZAA

(6) [Undertaking with term identical to fixed principle] The Commission must not accept the later undertaking under section 44ZZA unless the undertaking includes a term that is the same as the fixed principle. Variation or revocation of fixed principles when no undertaking is in operation (7) If there is no access undertaking in operation in connection with the provision of access to a service, the provider may revoke or vary a fixed principle that relates to the service (including the fixed period for the principle), but only with the consent of the Commission. The Commission may consent to the revocation or variation of the fixed principle if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the matters in subsection 44ZZA(3). Note: Subsection 44ZZA(7) contains provision for fixed principles to be varied or revoked in the situation where there is an access undertaking in operation. This may include a variation of the fixed period for the fixed principle.

Alteration of fixed principles (8) If an undertaking that is accepted by the Commission contains one or more fixed principles, the undertaking is accepted on the basis that: (a) the principle may be varied or revoked under subsection (7) or 44ZZA(7); and (b) the principle may be cancelled, revoked, terminated or varied by or under later legislation; and (c) no compensation is payable if the principle is cancelled, revoked, terminated or varied as mentioned in any of the above paragraphs. (9) [Subsection 44ZZAAB(8) does not affect interpretation of other sections of this Act] Subsection (8) does not, by implication, affect the interpretation of any other provision of this Act. [S 44ZZAAB insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 5]

44ZZAA

Access codes prepared by industry bodies

(1) [Written code settting out access rules] An industry body may give a written code to the Commission setting out rules for access to a service. (2) [Expiry date] The code must specify the expiry date of the code. (3) [Commission considerations] The Commission may accept the code, if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the following matters: (aa) the objects of this Part; (ab) the pricing principles specified in section 44ZZCA; (a) the legitimate business interests of providers who might give undertakings in accordance with the code; (b) the public interest, including the public interest in having competition in markets (whether or not in Australia); (c) the interests of persons who might want access to the service covered by the code; (d) [Repealed] (e) any matters specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection; (f) any other matters that the Commission thinks are relevant. (3A) [Where code not to be accepted] The Commission must not accept the code if a decision of the Commonwealth Minister is in force under section 44N that a regime established by a State or Territory for access to the service is an effective access regime. [Subs (3A) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 102]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

327

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[Subs (3) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 100 and 101]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZAA (4) [Repealed] [Subs (4) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 103; am Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 104]

(6) [Industry body may withdraw or vary code] The industry body may: (a) withdraw the code given under subsection (1) at any time before the Commission makes a decision whether to accept the code; and (b) withdraw or vary the code at any time after it has been accepted by the Commission, but only with the consent of the Commission. The Commission may consent to a variation of the code if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the matters in subsection (3). Note: The Commission may rely on industry body consultations before giving its consent: see section 44ZZAB. [Subs (6) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 4 item 4; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 105; Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11]

(7) [Industry body ceases to exist] If the industry body that gave the code to the Commission has ceased to exist, a withdrawal or variation under subsection (6) may be made by a body or association prescribed by the regulations as a replacement for the original industry body. (8) [Definitions] In this section: code means a set of rules (which may be in general terms or detailed terms). industry body means a body or association (including a body or association established by a law of a State or Territory) prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to a decision of the Commission under this section: see section 44ZZBC. Note 2: The Commission may request information and invite public submissions in relation to its decision: see sections 44ZZBCA and 44ZZBD. Note 3: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44ZZBE. [Subs (8) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 60 and 61; Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 106; Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 12] [S 44ZZAA am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; Act 108 of 2004; insrt Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 6J(1) prescribes the matters which the ACCC must have regard to in considering whether to accept an access code for s 44ZZAA(3)(e); and • regs 6J(2) and (3) prescribe the National Electricity Code Administrator Limited and the Australian Energy Market Commission to be industry bodies for s 44ZZAA(8).]

SECTION 44ZZAA COMMENTARY Outline ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZAA.20] Industry codes ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZAA.40]

328

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services [CCA.44ZZAA.40] Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services [CCA.44ZZAA.20]

s 44ZZAA

Outline

This section permits the ACCC to accept access undertakings from prescribed industry bodies. Industry bodies may be prescribed by regulation. The only body prescribed is the National Electricity Code Administrator (NECA) which was responsible for administration of the National Electricity Code until the Australian Energy Regulator commenced operations on 1 July 2005: see Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 6J; CCA, Pt IIIAA. The section sets out the terms and conditions on which the ACCC might accept such an undertaking. The process followed by the ACCC is assessing proposed undertakings is essentially a public process. It is: • On receipt of an application the ACCC publishes the application and seeks submissions on it. • Once the submissions have been assessed the ACCC will prepare and publish a draft decision. In doing so the ACCC often retains experts in the particular area to assist it in its consideration of the matter. Anyone affected by the matter is entitled to make a submission on the draft decision. • The ACCC considers all submissions and publishes a final decision. Information necessary to enable the ACCC to evaluate an undertaking or submissions in relation to it is often commercially sensitive. The ACCC will accept such information on a confidential basis, but requires a summary of the information for the public register. In considering whether or not to accept an undertaking, the ACCC takes into account: • the object of promoting economically efficient use of infrastructure and providing guiding principles to encourage consistent access regulation; • any pricing principles promulgated by the Minister; • the legitimate business interests of those who might become parties to the Code; • the public interest, including but not limited to considerations related to fostering competition; • the interests of those who might want access; • whether there is already an access regime covering the matter; • government legislation and policies relating to ecologically sustainable development; • social welfare and equity considerations, including community service obligations; • government legislation and policies in matters such as occupational health and safety, industrial relations, access and equity; • economic and regional development, including employment and investment growth; • the interests of consumers, or of a class of consumers; • the competitiveness of Australian businesses; and • the efficient allocation of resources. Unlike the position with individual undertakings, the ACCC is not required to set an expiry date on decisions to accept undertakings from industry bodies, but it may do so. Undertakings may be varied by the party giving them, but only with the consent of the ACCC. [CCA.44ZZAA.40]

Industry codes

That Code provided for regulation of a single electricity market in the States and Territory that have adopted it. Since the establishment of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Markets Commission the Code has become the National Electricity Rules under the National Electricity Law. The Rules can be viewed at: http://www.aemc.gov.au.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

329

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

The National Electricity Code, adopted by the governments of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, was lodged with the ACCC as an access undertaking by NECA and accepted by the ACCC on 16 September 1998.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZAB

44ZZAB

Commission may rely on industry body consultations

(1) [Acceptance of industry code] The Commission may accept a code if the industry body has done the following before giving the code to the Commission under subsection 44ZZAA(1): (a) published the code or a draft of the code and invited people to make submissions to the industry body on the code or draft; (b) specified the effect of this subsection and subsection (2) when it published the code or draft; (c) considered any submissions that were received within the time limit specified by the industry body when it published the code or draft. [Subs (1) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 17]

(2) [Commission may consider submissions to industry body] In deciding whether to accept the code, the Commission may consider any submission referred to in paragraph (1)(c). (3) [Withdrawal or variation of code] Before consenting to a variation or withdrawal of a code under subsection 44ZZAA(6), the Commission may rely on: (a) publication of the variation or notice of the withdrawal by the industry body, including specification of the effect of this subsection and subsection (4); and (b) consideration by the industry body of any submissions that were received within the time limit specified by the industry body when it published the variation or notice. (4) [Commission may consider submissions to industry body] In deciding whether to consent to the variation or withdrawal, the Commission may consider any submission referred to in paragraph (3)(b). (5) [Definitions] In this section: code has the same meaning as it has in section 44ZZAA. industry body has the same meaning as it has in section 44ZZAA. [S 44ZZAB am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 108 of 2004, s 3 and Sch 1 item 13]

44ZZB

Undertakings cannot be accepted in certain cases [Repealed]

[S 44ZZB rep Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 107; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

SUBDIVISION B – EFFECT OF ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND ACCESS CODES [Subdiv B heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

44ZZBA

When access undertakings and access codes come into operation

Acceptance of access undertakings or access codes (1) If the Commission accepts an access undertaking or an access code, it comes into operation at: (a) if, within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision, no person has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision—the end of that period; or (b) if a person applies to the Tribunal within that period for review of the decision and the Tribunal affirms the decision—the time of the Tribunal’s decision. (2) [Tribunal’s decision determines operation date] If the Tribunal decides under paragraph 44ZZBF(7)(e) to accept an access undertaking or access code, it comes into operation at the time of the Tribunal’s decision.

330

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

s 44ZZBB

(3) [Expiry date] An access undertaking or access code continues in operation until its expiry date, unless it is earlier withdrawn. Note: The period for which an access undertaking or access code is in operation may be extended: see section 44ZZBB.

Withdrawal or variation of access undertakings or access codes (4) If the Commission consents to the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking or an access code, the withdrawal or variation comes into operation at: (a) if, within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision, no person has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision—the end of that period; or (b) if a person applies to the Tribunal within that period for review of the decision and the Tribunal affirms the decision—the time of the Tribunal’s decision. (5) [Tribunal’s decision determines withdrawal or variation date] If the Tribunal decides under paragraph 44ZZBF(7)(e) to consent to the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking or access code, the withdrawal or variation comes into operation at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. Revocation or variation of fixed principles in access undertakings (6) If the Commission consents to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle that is included as a term of an access undertaking under subsection 44ZZAAB(7), the revocation or variation comes into operation at: (a) if, within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision, no person has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision—the end of that period; or (b) if a person applies to the Tribunal within that period for review of the decision and the Tribunal affirms the decision—the time of the Tribunal’s decision. [Subs (6) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 6]

(7) [Revocation or variation takes effect at time of Tribunal’s decision] If the Tribunal decides under paragraph 44ZZBF(7)(e) to consent to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle that is included as term of an access undertaking, the revocation or variation comes into operation at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. [Subs (7) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 6] [S 44ZZBA am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

SUBDIVISION C – EXTENSIONS OF ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND ACCESS CODES [Subdiv C heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

44ZZBB

Extensions of access undertakings and access codes

(1) If an access undertaking is in operation under section 44ZZBA (including as a result of an extension under this section), the provider of the service may apply in writing to the Commission for an extension of the period for which it is in operation. Note: The Commission may extend the period for which the undertaking is in operation more than once: see subsection (8). This means there may be multiple applications under this subsection.

(2) [Proposed extension period] The provider of the service must specify in the application a proposed extension period.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

331

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Access undertakings

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZBB (3) [Appropriate extension for period of undertaking] The Commission may, by notice in writing, extend the period for which the undertaking is in operation if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection 44ZZA(3). The notice must specify the extension period. Access codes (4) If an access code is in operation under section 44ZZBA (including as a result of an extension under this section), the industry body may apply in writing to the Commission for an extension of the period for which it is in operation. Note: The Commission may extend the period for which the code is in operation more than once: see subsection (8). This means there may be multiple applications under this subsection.

(5) [Proposed extension period] The industry body must specify in the application a proposed extension period. (6) [Appropriate extension for code] The Commission may, by notice in writing, extend the period for which the code is in operation if it thinks it appropriate to do so having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection 44ZZAA(3). The notice must specify the extension period. (7) [Industry body ceases to exist] If the industry body that gave the code to the Commission has ceased to exist, an application under subsection (4) may be made by a body or association referred to in subsection 44ZZAA(7). Multiple extensions (8) The Commission may extend the period for which an access undertaking or an access code is in operation more than once. Note 1: There are time limits that apply to a decision of the Commission under this section: see section 44ZZBC. Note 2: The Commission may request information and invite public submissions in relation to its decision: see sections 44ZZBCA and 44ZZBD. Note 3: The Commission must publish its decision: see section 44ZZBE. [Subs (8) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 62 and 63] [S 44ZZBB am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

SUBDIVISION D – PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS [Subdiv D heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

44ZZBC

Time limit for Commission decisions

Commission to make decision on application within 180 days (1) The Commission must make a decision on an access undertaking application or an access code application within the period of 180 days (the expected period) starting at the start of the day the application is received. Stopping the clock (2) In working out the expected period in relation to an access undertaking application or an access code application, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item.

332

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Column 2 Situation Start day 1 An agreement is made in rela- The first day of the period tion to the application under specified in the agreement subsection (4) 2 A notice is given under sub- The day on which the notice is section 44ZZBCA(1) request- given ing information in relation to the application 3 A notice is published under The day on which the notice is subsection 44ZZBD(1) invit- published ing public submissions in relation to the application 4 A decision is published under The day on which the decision subsection 44ZZCB(4) defer- is published ring consideration of whether to accept the access undertaking, in whole or in part, while the Commission arbitrates an access dispute (3) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (2), do not disregard any day more than once.

s 44ZZBC

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement The last day of the period specified in the notice for the giving of the information The day specified in the notice as the day by which submissions may be made The day on which the final determination in relation to the arbitration of the access dispute is made

Stopping the clock by agreement (4) The Commission and: (a) for an access undertaking application—the provider of the service; and (b) for an access code application—the industry body or its replacement; may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period. (5) [Publication of agreement] The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement. Deemed final determination (6) If the Commission does not publish under section 44ZZBE an access undertaking decision or an access code decision within the expected period, it is taken, immediately after the end of the expected period, to have: (a) made a decision to not accept the application; and (b) published its decision under section 44ZZBE and its reasons for that decision.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

333

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[S 44ZZBC subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 64; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZBCA 44ZZBCA

Commission may request information

(1) [Request via written notice] The Commission may give a person a written notice requesting the person give to the Commission, within a specified period, information of a kind specified in the notice that the Commission considers may be relevant to making a decision on an access undertaking application or an access code application. (2) [Copies of notice] The Commission must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) in the case of an access undertaking application—the provider of the service (unless the provider is the person); and (ii) in the case of an access code application—the industry body that gave the application to the Commission (unless the body is the person); and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. (3) [Commission to consider information given in compliance with notice] In making a determination, the Commission: (a) must have regard to any information given in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard any information of the kind specified in the notice that is given after the specified period has ended. [S 44ZZBCA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 64]

44ZZBD

Commission may invite public submissions

Invitation (1) The Commission may publish, by electronic or other means, a notice inviting public submissions on an access undertaking application or an access code application if it considers that it is appropriate and practicable to do so. (2) [Details for notice] The notice must specify how submissions may be made and the day by which submissions may be made (which must be at least 14 days after the day the notice is published). Consideration of submissions (3) Subject to subsection (6), in making its decision on the application, the Commission: (a) must have regard to any submission made on or before the day specified in the notice; and (b) may disregard any submission made after the day specified in the notice. [Subs (3) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 65]

Commission may make submissions publicly available (4) The Commission may make any written submission, or a written record (which may be a summary) of any oral submission, publicly available. Confidentiality (5) A person may, at the time of making a submission, request that the Commission: (a) not make the whole or a part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (b) not publish or make available the whole or a part of the submission under section 44ZZBE; because of the confidential commercial information contained in the submission. (6) [Refusal of confidentiality request] If the Commission refuses such a request:

334

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6 - Access undertakings and access codes for services

s 44ZZBF

(a)

for a written submission—the Commission must, if the person who made it so requires, return the whole or the part of it to the person; and (b) for an oral submission—the person who made it may inform the Commission that the person withdraws the whole or the part of it; and (c) if the Commission returns the whole or the part of the submission, or the person withdraws the whole or the part of the submission, the Commission must not: (i) make the whole or the part of the submission available under subsection (4); and (ii) publish or make available the whole or the part of the submission under section 44ZZBE; and (iii) have regard to the whole or the part of the submission in making its decision on the application. [S 44ZZBD am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

44ZZBE

Commission must publish its decisions

(1) [Publication] The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, an access undertaking decision or an access code decision and its reasons for the decision. (2) [Copies] The Commission must give a copy of the publication to: (a) for an access undertaking decision—the provider of the service; or (b) for an access code decision—the industry body or its replacement. Consultation (3) Before publishing under subsection (1), the Commission may give any one or more of the following persons: (a) for an access undertaking decision—the provider of the service; (b) for an access code decision—the industry body or its replacement; (c) in any case—any other person the Commission considers appropriate; a notice in writing: (d) specifying what the Commission is proposing to publish; and (e) inviting the person to make a written submission to the Commission within 14 days after the notice is given identifying any information the person considers should not be published because of its confidential commercial nature. (4) [Commission to consider any submission] The Commission must have regard to any submission so made in deciding what to publish. It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. [S 44ZZBE insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

SUBDIVISION E – REVIEW OF DECISIONS [Subdiv E heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

Review of decisions

Application (1) A person whose interests are affected by an access undertaking decision or an access code decision may apply in writing to the Tribunal for review of the decision. (2) [21 days to apply for review] The person must apply for review within 21 days after the Commission publishes its decision.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

335

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

44ZZBF

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZBF Review (3) The review by the Tribunal is a reconsideration of the matter based on the information, reports and things referred to in section 44ZZOAA. Note: There are limits on the information to which the Tribunal may have regard (see section 44ZZOAA) and time limits that apply to the Tribunal’s decision on the review (see section 44ZZOA). [Subs (3) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 items 66 and 67]

(4) [Tribunal has same powers as Commission] For the purposes of the review, the Tribunal has the same powers as the Commission (other than the power to propose amendments under section 44ZZAAA). [Subs (4) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 68]

(5) [Member can request Commission assistance] The member of the Tribunal presiding at the review may require the Commission to give assistance for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5) subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 69]

(5A) [Member may require Commission to give information] Without limiting subsection (5), the member may, by written notice, require the Commission to give information, and to make reports, of a kind specified in the notice, within the period specified in the notice, for the purposes of the review. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 69]

(5B) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) the provider of the service; and (iii) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice. [Subs (5B) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 69]

Tribunal’s decision (6) If the Commission: (a) accepted an access undertaking or access code; or (b) consented to the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking or access code; or (ba) consented to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle under subsection 44ZZAAB(7); or (c) extended the period for which an access undertaking or access code is in operation; the Tribunal must, by writing, affirm or set aside the Commission’s decision. [Subs (6) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 7]

(7) [Tribunal’s decision] If the Commission: (a) rejected an access undertaking or access code; or (b) refused to consent to the withdrawal or variation of an access undertaking or access code; or (ba) refused to consent to the revocation or variation of a fixed principle under subsection 44ZZAAB(7); or (c) refused to extend the period for which an access undertaking or access code is in operation; the Tribunal must, by writing:

336

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6A - Pricing principles for access disputes & access undertakings or codes s 44ZZCA (d) affirm the Commission’s decision; or (e) set aside the Commission’s decision and accept the undertaking or code, consent to the withdrawal or variation of the undertaking or code, consent to the revocation or variation of the fixed principle or extend the period for which the undertaking or code is in operation. [Subs (7) am Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 items 8 and 9] [S 44ZZBF am Act 102 of 2010; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

SUBDIVISION F – REGISTER OF ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND ACCESS CODES [Subdiv F heading insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 108]

44ZZC

Register of access undertakings and access codes

(1) [Maintenance of public register] The Commission must maintain a public register that includes all access undertakings and access codes that have been accepted by the Commission, including those that are no longer in operation. (1A) [Register must detail fixed principles] For the purposes of subsection (1), if an access undertaking includes one or more fixed principles, the register must also include details of the fixed principles, including their fixed periods. [Subs (1A) insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 3 item 10]

(2) [Register must include variations] The register must include all variations of access undertakings and access codes. (3) [Register must include extensions] The register must also include details of all extensions of the period for which an access undertaking or an access code is in operation. [Subs (3) insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 109] [S 44ZZC am Act 102 of 2010; Act 92 of 2006; subst Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 7; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 6H provides that a person may inspect the public register of access undertakings kept under s 44ZC and obtain copies of documents on those registers provided a written request is made in person at the relevant office and a fee is paid; • reg 6I provides that a certified copy of a document contained in a Pt IIIA register can be relied upon as evidence of that document; • reg 28(1) and (2) prescribes copying fees for a requested document; and • reg 28(3) entitles a person appearing before the ACCC, without payment of a fee, to receive one certified copy of a document relating to the proceeding or matter.]

DIVISION 6A – PRICING PRINCIPLES FOR ACCESS DISPUTES AND ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS OR CODES [Div 6A insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

Pricing principles for access disputes and access undertakings or codes

The pricing principles relating to the price of access to a service are: (a) that regulated access prices should: (i) be set so as to generate expected revenue for a regulated service or services that is at least sufficient to meet the efficient costs of providing access to the regulated service or services; and (ii) include a return on investment commensurate with the regulatory and commercial risks involved; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

337

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

44ZZCA

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZCA (b)

that the access price structures should: (i) allow multi-part pricing and price discrimination when it aids efficiency; and (ii) not allow a vertically integrated access provider to set terms and conditions that discriminate in favour of its downstream operations, except to the extent that the cost of providing access to other operators is higher; and (c) that access pricing regimes should provide incentives to reduce costs or otherwise improve productivity.

Note:

The Commission must have regard to the principles in making a final determination under Division 3 and in deciding whether or not to accept an access undertaking or access code under Division 6. [S 44ZZCA insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

DIVISION 6B – OVERLAP AMONG DETERMINATIONS, REGISTERED CONTRACTS, ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS AND TRIBUNAL REVIEW [Div 6B heading subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 18] [Div 6B insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

44ZZCB

Deferring access disputes or access undertakings

(1) [Deferral in whole or in part] If, at a particular time, the Commission is: (a) arbitrating an access dispute under Division 3 relating to one or more matters of access to a declared service; and (b) considering whether to accept an access undertaking relating to the service and to one or more of those matters; then the Commission may, by notice in writing, decide to: (c) defer arbitrating the access dispute, in whole or in part, while it considers the access undertaking; or (d) defer considering whether to accept the access undertaking, in whole or in part, while it arbitrates the access dispute. Deferral of arbitration of access dispute (2) If: (a) the Commission defers arbitrating the access dispute; and (b) the Commission then accepts the access undertaking and it comes into operation; then the Commission must terminate the arbitration when the undertaking comes into operation, but only to the extent of the matters relating to access to the service that are dealt with in the undertaking. Note: The third party’s access to the service is determined under the access undertaking to the extent of the matters it deals with. If the access dispute deals with other matters, the third party’s access to the service in relation to those other matters is determined under any determination the Commission makes.

Deferral of consideration of access undertaking (3) If: (a) the Commission defers considering whether to accept the access undertaking; and (b) the Commission then makes a final determination in relation to the arbitration of the access dispute; then the Commission must resume considering whether to accept the access undertaking. Publication (4) The Commission must publish, by electronic or other means, any decision it makes under subsection (1) and its reasons for the decision. The Commission must give a copy of the decision

338

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Div 6B - Overlap among determinations, registered contracts etc

s 44ZZCBA

(including the reasons for the decision) to each party to the arbitration. Guidelines (5) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1), the Commission must have regard to: (a) the fact that the access undertaking will, if accepted, apply generally to access seekers and a final determination relating to the access dispute will only apply to the parties to the arbitration; and (b) any guidelines in force under subsection (6). It may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant. (6) [Guidelines determined by legislative instrument] The Commission must, by legislative instrument, determine guidelines for the purposes of subsection (5). (7) [Six months to make first set of guidelines] The Commission must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the first set of guidelines under subsection (6) is made within 6 months after the commencement of this subsection. Legislation Act 2003 (8) A notice made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. [Subs (8) am Act 126 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1 items 136 and 137, with effect from 5 Mar 2016] [S 44ZZCB am Act 126 of 2015; insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

44ZZCBA

Deferral of arbitration if review is underway

Commission may defer arbitration if declaration not stayed (1) If: (a) the Commission is arbitrating an access dispute relating to one or more matters of access to a declared service; and (b) an application for review of the declaration of the service has been made under subsection 44K(1); and (c) the Tribunal does not make an order under section 44KA staying the operation of the declaration; then the Commission may, by notice in writing to each party to the arbitration, decide to defer arbitrating the access dispute until the Tribunal has made its decision on the review if it considers it appropriate to do so.

(2) If: (a) the Commission is arbitrating an access dispute relating to one or more matters of access to a declared service; and (b) an application for review of the declaration of the service has been made under subsection 44K(1); and (c) the Tribunal makes an order under section 44KA staying the operation of the declaration; then the Commission must, by notice in writing to each party to the arbitration, defer arbitrating the access dispute until the Tribunal has made its decision on the review. Resumption of arbitration if declaration affırmed (3) If the Commission defers arbitrating the access dispute and the Tribunal affirms the declaration, the Commission must resume arbitrating the dispute.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

339

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Commission must defer arbitration if declaration stayed

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZCBA Termination of arbitration if declaration varied or set aside (4) If the Commission defers arbitrating the access dispute and the Tribunal sets aside or varies the declaration, the Commission must terminate the arbitration. (5) [Commission may have regard to terminated arbitration records] If: (a) an arbitration is terminated under subsection (4) or section 44YA; and (b) an access dispute is notified under section 44S in relation to access to the same declared service; and (c) the parties to the dispute are the same parties to the terminated arbitration; then the Commission may have regard to any record made in the course of the terminated arbitration if it considers it appropriate to do so. Notices are not legislative instruments (6) A notice given under subsection (1) or (2) is not a legislative instrument. [S 44ZZCBA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 5 item 19]

44ZZCC

Overlap between determinations and access undertakings

If, at a particular time: (a) a final determination is in operation in relation to a declared service; and (b) an access undertaking is in operation in relation to the service; the third party’s access to the service at that time is to be determined under the undertaking to the extent that it deals with a matter or matters relating to access to the service that are not dealt with in the determination. [S 44ZZCC insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

44ZZCD

Overlap between registered contracts and access undertakings

If, at a particular time: (a) a contract is registered under Division 4 in relation to a declared service; and (b) an access undertaking is in operation in relation to the service; the third party’s access to the service at that time is to be determined under the undertaking to the extent that it deals with a matter or matters relating to access to the service that are not dealt with in the contract. [S 44ZZCD insrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 110]

DIVISION 7 – ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES 44ZZD

Enforcement of determinations

(1) [Contravention of determinations] If the Federal Court is satisfied, on the application of a party to a determination, that another party to the determination has engaged, is engaging, or is proposing to engage in conduct that constitutes a contravention of the determination, the Court may make all or any of the following orders: (a) an order granting an injunction on such terms as the Court thinks appropriate: (i) restraining the other party from engaging in the conduct; or (ii) if the conduct involves refusing or failing to do something—requiring the other party to do that thing; (b) an order directing the other party to compensate the applicant for loss or damage suffered as a result of the contravention; (c) any other order that the Court thinks appropriate.

340

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 7 – Enforcement and remedies

s 44ZZE

(2) [Federal Court: injunctions and orders] If the Federal Court has power under subsection (1) to grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in particular conduct, or requiring a person to do anything, the Court may make any other orders (including granting an injunction) that it thinks appropriate against any other person who was involved in the contravention concerned. (3) [References to persons involved in contravention] A reference in this section to a person involved in the contravention is a reference to a person who has: (a) aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or (b) induced the contravention, whether through threats or promises or otherwise; or (c) been in any way (directly or indirectly) knowingly concerned in or a party to the contravention; or (d) conspired with others to effect the contravention. [S 44ZZD insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZE

Enforcement of prohibition on hindering access

(1) [Contraventions of s 44ZZ] If the Federal Court is satisfied, on the application of any person, that another person (the obstructor) has engaged, is engaging, or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting a contravention of section 44ZZ, the Court may make all or any of the following orders: (a) an order granting an injunction on such terms as the Court thinks appropriate: (i) restraining the obstructor from engaging in the conduct; or (ii) if the conduct involves refusing or failing to do something—requiring the obstructor to do that thing; (b) an order directing the obstructor to compensate a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the contravention; (c) any other order that the Court thinks appropriate. (2) [Federal Court: injunctions and orders] If the Federal Court has power under subsection (1) to grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in particular conduct, or requiring a person to do anything, the Court may make any other orders (including granting an injunction) that it thinks appropriate against any other person who was involved in the contravention concerned. (3) [Where Divisions 2 and 3 more appropriate] The grounds on which the Court may decide not to make an order under this section include the ground that Divisions 2 and 3 provide a more appropriate way of dealing with the issue of the applicant’s access to the service concerned.

[S 44ZZE insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

341

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(4) [References to persons involved in contravention] A reference in this section to a person involved in the contravention is a reference to a person who has: (a) aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or (b) induced the contravention, whether through threats or promises or otherwise; or (c) been in any way (directly or indirectly) knowingly concerned in or a party to the contravention; or (d) conspired with others to effect the contravention.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZF 44ZZF

Consent injunctions

On an application for an injunction under section 44ZZD or 44ZZE, the Federal Court may grant an injunction by consent of all of the parties to the proceedings, whether or not the Court is satisfied that the section applies. [S 44ZZF insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZG

Interim injunctions

(1) [Pending applications under s 44ZZD or 44ZZE] The Federal Court may grant an interim injunction pending determination of an application under section 44ZZD or 44ZZE. (2) [No undertakings as to damages] If the Commission makes an application under section 44ZZE to the Federal Court for an injunction, the Court must not require the Commission or any other person, as a condition of granting an interim injunction, to give any undertakings as to damages. [S 44ZZG insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZH

Factors relevant to granting a restraining injunction

The power of the Federal Court to grant an injunction under section 44ZZD or 44ZZE restraining a person from engaging in conduct may be exercised whether or not: (a) it appears to the Court that the person intends to engage again, or to continue to engage, in conduct of that kind; or (b) the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind; or (c) there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the first-mentioned person engages in conduct of that kind. [S 44ZZH insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZI

Factors relevant to granting a mandatory injunction

The power of the Federal Court to grant an injunction under section 44ZZD or 44ZZE requiring a person to do a thing may be exercised whether or not: (a) it appears to the Court that the person intends to refuse or fail again, or to continue to refuse or fail, to do that thing; or (b) the person has previously refused or failed to do that thing; or (c) there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the first-mentioned person refuses or fails to do that thing. [S 44ZZI insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZJ

Enforcement of access undertakings

(1) [If Commission suspects breach of terms] If the Commission thinks that the provider of an access undertaking in operation under Division 6 has breached any of its terms, the Commission may apply to the Federal Court for an order under subsection (2). [Subs (1) am Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 111]

(2) [Orders in event of breach of undertaking] If the Federal Court is satisfied that the provider has breached a term of the undertaking, the Court may make all or any of the following orders: (a) an order directing the provider to comply with that term of the undertaking; (b) an order directing the provider to compensate any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach;

342

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 8 – Miscellaneous (c)

s 44ZZM

any other order that the Court thinks appropriate.

(3) [Repealed] [Subs (3) rep Act 69 of 2000, s 3 and Sch 2 item 3] [S 44ZZJ am Act 92 of 2006; Act 69 of 2000; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZK

Discharge or variation of injunction or other order

The Federal Court may discharge or vary an injunction or order granted under this Division. [S 44ZZK insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

DIVISION 8 – MISCELLANEOUS 44ZZL

Register of determinations

The Commission must maintain a public register that specifies the following information for each determination: (a) the names of the parties to the determination; (b) the service to which the determination relates; (c) the date on which the determination was made. [S 44ZZL insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 6H provides that a person may inspect the public register of determinations kept under s 44ZZL and obtain copies of documents on those registers provided a written request is made in person at the relevant office and a fee is paid; • reg 6I provides that a certified copy of a document contained in a Pt IIIA register can be relied upon as evidence of that document; • reg 28(1) and (2) prescribes copying fees for a requested document; and • reg 28(3) entitles a person appearing before the ACCC, without payment of a fee, to receive one certified copy of a document relating to the proceeding or matter.]

44ZZM Commonwealth consent to conferral of functions etc on the Commission or Tribunal by State or Territory laws (1) [Functions, powers or duties may be conferred] A State or Territory access regime law may confer functions or powers, or impose duties, on the Commission or Tribunal. Note: Section 44ZZMB sets out when such a law imposes a duty on the Commission or Tribunal.

(3) [Commonwealth and State/Territory agreement] The Commission or Tribunal cannot perform a duty or function, or exercise a power, under a State or Territory access regime law unless the conferral of the function or power, or the imposition of the duty, is in accordance with an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State or Territory concerned. [S 44ZZM subst Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2; Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 25; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

343

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(2) [Limitations of conferral] Subsection (1) does not authorise the conferral of a function or power, or the imposition of a duty, by a law of a State or Territory to the extent to which: (a) the conferral or imposition, or the authorisation, would contravene any constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Commission or Tribunal; or (b) the authorisation would otherwise exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZMA

[CCA.44ZZM.20]

SECTION 44ZZM COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZM.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZM permits the ACCC to perform functions conferred on it under State and Territory access regimes. One such regime is the National Third Party Access Code for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems, known as the Gas Code: see for example Gas Pipelines Access (Victoria) Act 1998 (Vic), Gas Pipelines Access (South Australia) Act 1997 (SA). 44ZZMA

How duty is imposed

Application (1) This section applies if a State or Territory access regime law purports to impose a duty on the Commission or Tribunal. Note 1: Section 44ZZMB sets out when such a law imposes a duty on the Commission or Tribunal. Note 2: Section 320 of the South Australian Energy Retail Legislation, as it applies as a law of a State or Territory, deals with the case where a duty purportedly imposed on a Commonwealth body under that applied law cannot be imposed by the State or Territory or the Commonwealth due to constitutional doctrines restricting such duties. [Subs (1) am Act 119 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 items 24 and 25, with effect from 1 Jul 2012]

State or Territory legislative power suffıcient to support duty (2) The duty is taken not to be imposed by this Act (or any other law of the Commonwealth) to the extent to which: (a) imposing the duty is within the legislative powers of the State or Territory concerned; and (b) imposing the duty by the law of the State or Territory is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Commission or Tribunal. Note: If this subsection applies, the duty will be taken to be imposed by force of the law of the State or Territory (the Commonwealth having consented under section 44ZZM to the imposition of the duty by that law).

Commonwealth legislative power suffıcient to support duty but State or Territory legislative powers are not (3) If, to ensure the validity of the purported imposition of the duty, it is necessary that the duty be imposed by a law of the Commonwealth (rather than by the law of the State or Territory), the duty is taken to be imposed by this Act to the extent necessary to ensure that validity. (4) [Parliament to rely on constitutional powers] If, because of subsection (3), this Act is taken to impose the duty, it is the intention of the Parliament to rely on all powers available to it under the Constitution to support the imposition of the duty by this Act. (5) [Extent of imposition of duty] The duty is taken to be imposed by this Act in accordance with subsection (3) only to the extent to which imposing the duty: (a) is within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth; and (b) is consistent with the constitutional doctrines restricting the duties that may be imposed on the Commission or Tribunal. (6) [Section 44ZZM not limited] Subsections (1) to (5) do not limit section 44ZZM. [S 44ZZMA am Act 119 of 2011; insrt Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

344

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 8 – Miscellaneous

[CCA.44ZZNA.20] 44ZZMB

s 44ZZNA

When a law of a State or Territory imposes a duty

For the purposes of sections 44ZZM and 44ZZMA, a State or Territory access regime law imposes a duty on the Commission or Tribunal if: (a) the law confers a function or power on the Commission or Tribunal; and (b) the circumstances in which the function or power is conferred give rise to an obligation on the Commission or Tribunal to perform the function or to exercise the power. [S 44ZZMB insrt Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2]

44ZZN

Compensation for acquisition of property

(1) [Reasonable compensation] If: (a) (b)

a determination would result in an acquisition of property; and the determination would not be valid, apart from this section, because a particular person has not been sufficiently compensated; the Commonwealth must pay that person: (c) a reasonable amount of compensation agreed on between the person and the Commonwealth; or (d) failing agreement—a reasonable amount of compensation determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) [Assessing compensation] In assessing compensation payable in a proceeding begun under this section, the following must be taken into account if they arise out of the same event or transaction: (a) any damages or compensation recovered, or other remedy, in a proceeding begun otherwise than under this section; (b) compensation awarded under a determination. (3) [Definition: acquisition of property] In this section, acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. [S 44ZZN insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZNA

Operation of Parts IV and VII not affected by this Part

This Part does not affect the operation of Parts IV and VII. [S 44ZZNA insrt Act 28 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8]

SECTION 44ZZNA COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZNA.20]

Outline

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

345

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

Section 44ZZNA provides that Pt IIIA is to have no effect on the operation of Pt IV or VII. This means that, for instance, the existence of a right to have services declared under this Part can have no effect on the operation of s 46: see NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [82].

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZO

44ZZO

Conduct by directors, servants or agents

(1) [State of mind: body corporate] If, in a proceeding under this Part in respect of conduct engaged in by a body corporate, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the body corporate in relation to particular conduct, it is sufficient to show: (a) that the conduct was engaged in by a director, servant or agent of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; and (b) that the director, servant or agent had the state of mind. (2) [Conduct on behalf of body corporate] Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a body corporate: (a) by a director, servant or agent of the body corporate within the scope of the person’s actual or apparent authority; or (b) by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of a director, servant or agent of the body corporate, if the giving of the direction, consent or agreement is within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the director, servant or agent; is taken for the purposes of this Part to have been engaged in also by the body corporate, unless the body corporate establishes that the body corporate took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct. (3) [State of mind: individual] If, in a proceeding under this Part in respect of conduct engaged in by an individual, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the individual, it is sufficient to show: (a) that the conduct was engaged in by a servant or agent of the individual within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; and (b) that the servant or agent had the relevant state of mind. (4) [Conduct on behalf of individual] Conduct engaged in on behalf of an individual: (a) by a servant or agent of the individual within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the servant or agent; or (b) by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of a servant or agent of the individual, if the giving of the direction, consent or agreement is within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the servant or agent; is taken, for the purposes of this Part, to have been engaged in also by that individual, unless that individual establishes that he or she took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct. (5) [Where individual not liable to imprisonment] If: (a) an individual is convicted of an offence; and (b) the individual would not have been convicted of the offence if subsections (3) and (4) had not been enacted; the individual is not liable to be punished by imprisonment for that offence. (6) [Reference to state of mind] A reference in subsection (1) or (3) to the state of mind of a person includes a reference to: (a) the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief or purpose of the person; and (b) the person’s reasons for the intention, opinion, belief or purpose.

346

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 8 – Miscellaneous

s 44ZZOAAA

(7) [Reference to director includes constituent member] A reference in this section to a director of a body corporate includes a reference to a constituent member of a body corporate incorporated for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. [S 44ZZO insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZOAAA

Information to be given to Tribunal

Tribunal to notify decision maker (1) If an application for review of a decision (however described) is made under this Part, the Tribunal must notify the decision maker of the application. (2) [Tribunal to notify Council] If the application is made under section 44K, 44L, 44LJ, 44LK or 44O, the Tribunal must also notify the Council of the application. Decision maker to give material to Tribunal (3) The decision maker must give the following information to the Tribunal within the period specified by the Tribunal: (a) if the decision is taken to have been made because of the operation of subsection 44H(9), 44J(7), 44LG(6), 44LI(7), 44N(4) or 44NB(3A)—all of the information that the Council took into account in connection with making the recommendation to which the decision under review relates; (b) if the decision is taken to have been made because of the operation of subsection 44PD(6), 44XA(6) or 44ZZBC(6)—any information or documents given to the Commission in connection with the decision to which the review relates, other than information or documents in relation to which the Commission could not have regard because of subparagraph 44PE(6)(c)(iii) or 44ZZBD(6)(c)(iii); (c) otherwise—all of the information that the decision maker took into account in connection with the making of the decision to which the review relates. Tribunal may request further information (4) The Tribunal may request such information that the Tribunal considers reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of making its decision on a review under this Part.

(6) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must: (a) give a copy of the notice to: (i) the person who applied for review; and (ii) if the application is made under section 44K, 44L, 44LJ, 44LK or 44O—the Council; and (iii) if the application is made under section 44PG, 44PH, 44ZP, 44ZX or 44ZZBF—the Commission; and (iv) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal; and (b) publish, by electronic or other means, the notice.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

347

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(5) [Request via written notice] A request under subsection (4) must be made by written notice given to a person specifying the information requested and the period within which the information must be given to the Tribunal.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZOAAA (7) [Information not reasonably available to decision maker] Without limiting the information that may be given in accordance with the notice, information may include information that could not have reasonably been made available to the decision maker at the time the decision under review was made. Certain material before the Tribunal not to be disclosed (8) The Tribunal may, on the application of a person, prohibit or restrict the disclosure of the contents of a document or other information given to the Tribunal under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so because of the confidential nature of the document or other information, or for any other reason. (9) [Meaning of decision maker] In this section: decision maker, in relation to an application for review under this Part, means: (a) if the application was made under section 44K, 44L, 44LJ or 44LK—the designated Minister; or (b) if the application was made under section 44O—the Commonwealth Minister; or (c) if the application was made under section 44PG, 44PH, 44ZP, 44ZX, or 44ZZBF—the Commission. [S 44ZZOAAA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 70]

44ZZOAA

Tribunal only to consider particular material

For the purposes of a review under this Part, the Tribunal: (a) subject to paragraph (b), must have regard to: (i) information that was given to the Tribunal under subsection 44ZZOAAA(3); and (ii) any information given to the Tribunal in accordance with a notice given under subsection 44ZZOAAA(5); and (iii) any thing done as mentioned in subsection 44K(6), 44L(5), 44LJ(5), 44LK(5), 44O(5), 44PG(5), 44PH(5), 44ZP(5), 44ZX(5) or 44ZZBF(5); and (iv) any information or report given to the Tribunal in relation to the review under subsection 44K(6A), 44L(5A), 44LJ(6), 44LK(6), 44O(5A), 44PG(5A), 44PH(5A), 44ZP(5A), 44ZX(5A) or 44ZZBF(5A) within the specified period; and (b) may disregard: (i) any information given to the Tribunal in response to a notice given under subsection 44ZZOAAA(5) after the period specified in the notice has ended; and (ii) any information or report of the kind specified in a notice under subsection 44K(6A), 44L(5A), 44LJ(6), 44LK(6), 44O(5A), 44PG(5A), 44PH(5A), 44ZP(5A), 44ZX(5A) or 44ZZBF(5A) that is given to the Tribunal after the specified period has ended. [S 44ZZOAA insrt Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 70]

44ZZOA

Time limit for Tribunal decisions

(1) [Tribunal to make decision within consideration period] The Tribunal must make a decision on a review under this Part within the consideration period. (2) [Meaning of consideration period] The consideration period is a period of 180 days (the expected period), starting at the start of the day the application for review is received, unless the consideration period is extended under subsection (7).

348

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 8 – Miscellaneous

s 44ZZOA

Stopping the clock (3) In working out the expected period in relation to an application for review, in a situation referred to in column 1 of an item of the following table, disregard any day in a period: (a) starting on the day referred to in column 2 of the item; and (b) ending on the day referred to in column 3 of the item. Stopping the clock Item Column 1 Situation 1 An agreement is made in relation to the application under subsection (5) 2 A notice is given under subsection 44ZZOAAA(5) requesting information in relation to the decision to which the application relates 3 A notice is given under subsection 44K(6A), 44L(5A), 44LJ(6), 44LK(6), 44O(5A), 44PG(5A), 44PH(5A), 44ZP(5A), 44ZX(5A) or 44ZZBF(5A) requiring information or a report to be given in relation to the review

Column 2 Start day The first day of the period specified in the agreement

Column 3 End day The last day of the period specified in the agreement

The day on which the notice The last day of the period is given specified in the notice for the giving of the information

The day on which the notice The last day of the period is given specified in the notice for the giving of the information or the report

(4) [Day cannot be disregarded more than once] Despite subsection (3), do not disregard any day more than once. Stopping the clock by agreement (5) The following may agree in writing that a specified period is to be disregarded in working out the expected period: (a) the Tribunal; (b) the person who applied for review; (c) if the application is made under section 44K, 44L, 44LJ, 44LK or 44O—the Council; (d) if the application is made under section 44PG, 44PH, 44ZP, 44ZX or 44ZZBF—the Commission; (e) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal.

Extension of time for making decision (7) If the Tribunal is unable to make a decision on an application for review within the consideration period (whether it is the expected period or the consideration period as previously extended under this subsection), it must, by notice in writing to the designated Minister, extend the consideration period by a specified period.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

349

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

(6) [Publication of agreement] The Tribunal must publish, by electronic or other means, the agreement.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZOA (8) [Details of notice] The notice must: (a) specify when the Tribunal must now make its decision on the application for review; and (b) include a statement explaining why the Tribunal has been unable to make a decision on the review within the consideration period. (9) [Copies of notice] The Tribunal must give a copy of the notice to: (a) the person who applied for review; and (b) if the application for review is made under section 44K, 44L, 44LJ, 44LK or 44O—the Council; and (c) if the application for review is made under section 44PG, 44PH, 44ZP, 44ZX or 44ZZBF—the Commission; and (d) any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings for review by the Tribunal. Publication (10) If the Tribunal extends the consideration period under subsection (7), it must publish a notice in a national newspaper: (a) stating that it has done so; and (b) specifying the day by which it must now make a decision on the application for review. Failure to comply with time limit does not affect validity (11) Failure by the Tribunal to comply with a time limit set in this section does not affect the validity of a decision made by the Tribunal under this Part. [S 44ZZOA subst Act 102 of 2010, s 3 and Sch 1 item 71; reinsrt Act 92 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 112; rep Act 134 of 2003, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; insrt Act 101 of 1998, s 3 and Sch 1 item 26]

44ZZP

Regulations about review by the Tribunal

(1) [Regulatory provisions] The regulations may make provision about the following matters in relation to the functions of the Tribunal under this Part: (a) the constitution of the Tribunal; (b) the arrangement of the business of the Tribunal; (c) the disclosure of interests by members of the Tribunal; (d) determining questions before the Tribunal and questions that arise during a review; (e) procedure and evidence, including the appointment of persons to assist the Tribunal by giving evidence (whether personally or by means of a written report). [Subs (1) am Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 78]

(2) [No application to energy laws] Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) do not apply in relation to the functions of the Tribunal under a State/Territory energy law or a designated Commonwealth energy law. Note: See section 44ZZR. [Subs (2) insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 79] [S 44ZZP am Act 45 of 2007; insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

350

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IIIA – Access to services Division 8 – Miscellaneous 44ZZQ

s 44ZZR

Regulations about fees for inspection etc of registers

The regulations may make provision about the inspection of registers maintained under this Part (including provision about fees). [S 44ZZQ insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 59]

44ZZR Procedure of the Tribunal when performing functions under a State/Territory energy law or a designated Commonwealth energy law (1) [Application of certain sections to energy laws] Sections 103, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 of this Act apply to the Tribunal when performing functions under a State/Territory energy law or a designated Commonwealth energy law. (2) [Regulatory provisions] The regulations may make provision about the following matters in relation to the functions of the Tribunal under a State/Territory energy law or a designated Commonwealth energy law: (a) the constitution of the Tribunal; (b) the arrangement of the business of the Tribunal; (c) the disclosure of interests by members of the Tribunal; (d) determining questions before the Tribunal and questions that arise during a review; (e) procedure and evidence, including the appointment of persons to assist the Tribunal by giving evidence (whether personally or by means of a written report); (f) the fees and expenses of witnesses in proceedings before the Tribunal. (3) [Inconsistency] Subsection (1), and regulations made for the purposes of subsection (2), have no effect to the extent (if any) to which they are inconsistent with the State/Territory energy law, or the designated Commonwealth energy law, concerned.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

351

CCA ss 44AA-44ZZR

[S 44ZZR insrt Act 45 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1 item 80 Cross-reference: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010: • reg 7B(1) prescribes certain provisions to apply to a merits review conducted by the Australian Competition Tribunal for s 44ZR(2); • reg 7C requires the Tribunal to keep a register of applications for review under a State/Territory energy law (unless reg 7D exclusion applies) for s 44ZR(2); and • reg 7D enables information to be excluded from the register and the Commission’s website for reasons of confidentiality.]

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

PART IV – RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES PART IV COMMENTARY Introduction ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.PTIV.20] Extension to intrastate activities ................................................................................................... [CCA.PTIV.40]

[CCA.PTIV.20]

Introduction

This Part contains the substantive provisions of the Act that protect and enhance competition. It contains prohibitions against: • anti-competitive contracts, arrangements and understandings; • price-fixing and other cartels; • monopolisation and misuse of market power; • anti-competitive mergers; • resale price maintenance; and • secondary boycotts affecting competition. Those provisions are directed at conduct that is directed against the object of the Act, which is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 per Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ. [CCA.PTIV.40]

Extension to intrastate activities

The uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the provisions of this Part to all persons in the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Section 51AAA provides that State and Territory laws not directly inconsistent with this Part operate concurrently with it.

DIVISION 1 – CARTEL CONDUCT [Div 1 insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SUBDIVISION A – INTRODUCTION 44ZZRA

Simplified outline

The following is a simplified outline of this Division: • • •

This Division sets out parallel offences and civil penalty provisions relating to cartel conduct. A corporation must not make, or give effect to, a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision. A cartel provision is a provision relating to: (a) price-fixing; or (b) restricting outputs in the production and supply chain; or (c) allocating customers, suppliers or territories; or (d) bid-rigging;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

353

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRA

[CCA.44ZZRA.20]

by parties that are, or would otherwise be, in competition with each other. [S 44ZZRA insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRA COMMENTARY Context ................................................................................................................................... Proposals for Change ............................................................................................................. Concepts: Bid rigging ............................................................................................................. Further reading .......................................................................................................................

[CCA.44ZZRA.20]

[CCA.44ZZRA.20] [CCA.44ZZRA.40] [CCA.44ZZRA.60] [CCA.44ZZRA.80]

Context

This section is an introduction to the cartel provisions. It has no operative effect. Cartels are among the most egregious violations of competition law, often described as “cancers to the open market economy”. Although some cartel conduct (collusive tendering and bid-rigging) was criminal under the Trade Practices Act 1965, when the 1974 Act was introduced all contraventions of the competition provisions were treated as civil contraventions carrying a pecuniary penalty. The USA’s Department of Justice has always regarded anti-cartel enforcement as a priority. By the late 1980s, the DOJ found itself confronting international as well as domestic cartels. When it came to international cartels, however, as other countries did not regard cartel activity as a crime, extradition to the USA was not available. In some cases blocking laws were enacted as a reaction against what was then thought to be an inappropriate attempt by the USA to apply its anti-trust laws extraterritorially. Australia passed a blocking statute, the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976, in relation to a private cartel action in the USA against an international uranium marketing scheme sanctioned by the Australian and other governments. At the USA’s urging, the OECD undertook a study of cartels, producing a seminal set of recommendations on the economic and social impact of “hard core” cartels in 1998 adopted by the OECD Council: OECD paper C(98)95 adopted 25 March 1998. See also [CCA.44ZZRD.20]. In 2002, the Australian Government commissioned the Dawson Committee to undertake a thorough review of our trade practices law (see Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, ThomsonReuters, 2012). The Dawson Committee’s 2003 report recommended in principle that serious forms of cartel conduct should be treated as criminal and the then Government accepted that recommendation. In January 2008, the then Minister for Competition Policy, Chris Bowen, released an Exposure Draft and following quite intense debate over the form the law should take, the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act 2009 (Act No 59 of 2009) came into effect on 24 July 2009 (Sch 2, items 50 and 51 commenced on 27 June 2009). [CCA.44ZZRA.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the simplification of the prohibitions on cartel conduct. The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) had made the following specific recommendations: • the provisions should: – apply to cartel conduct involving persons who compete to supply goods or services to, or acquire goods or services from, persons resident in or carrying on business within Australia; and – be confined to conduct involving firms that are actual or likely competitors, where “likely” means on the balance of probabilities (thereby potentially removing the type of conduct dealt with in Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14);

354

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRA

• an exemption should be included for trading restrictions that are imposed by one firm on another in connection with the supply or acquisition of goods or services (including IP licensing), recognising that such conduct will be prohibited by s 45 (or s 47 if retained) if it has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The Government also announced that, having considered a recommendation that the joint venture exception be broadened, an appropriate exemption should be included for joint ventures to provide appropriate exemptions for “demonstrable and deliberative” joint ventures. As at 1 January 2017 the legislation had not been introduced. [CCA.44ZZRA.60]

Concepts: Bid rigging

Although the outline refers to “bid-rigging” and the term “bid” is defined in s 44ZZRC to include tenders and steps that precede a tender, the Act does not use the term. Instead, the description of “cartel conduct” in s 44ZZRD contains a more elaborate description of offending conduct in relation to bids. That reflects a drafting style very different to that which applied to the Act in its original form and a tendency to overcomplicate drafting. The term “bid rigging” originated in American literature on the Sherman Act and has more recently been included in the Enterprise Act 2002 (UK) and Competition Act 1985 (CAN). The Trade Practices Act 1965, s 85(1) contained the term “collusive tendering agreement”, defined as follows: (a) an agreement by two or more persons for the submission of identical tenders or a joint tender for the supply or acquisition of goods or services; or (b) any other agreement that has the purpose of effect of preventing or restricting competition among all or any of the parties in respect of tendering for the supply or acquisition of goods or services. The Canadian Competition Act 1985 in s 47(1) defines “bid-rigging” as: (a) an agreement or arrangement between or among two or more persons whereby one or more of those persons agrees or undertakes not to submit a bid or tender in response to a call or request for bids or tenders, or agrees or undertakes to withdraw a bid or tender submitted in response to such a call or request, or (b) the submission, in response to a call or request for bids or tenders, of bids or tenders that are arrived at by agreement or arrangement between or among two or more bidders or tenderers, where the agreement or arrangement is not made known to the person calling for or requesting the bids or tenders at or before the time when any bid or tender is submitted or withdrawn, as the case may be, by any person who is a party to the agreement or arrangement. The UK Enterprise Act 2002, s 188(5) defines “bid-rigging arrangements” to mean: “Bid-rigging arrangements” are arrangements under which, in response to a request for bids for the supply of a product or service in the United Kingdom, or for the production of a product in the United Kingdom — (a) A but not B may make a bid, or (b) A and B may each make a bid but, in one case or both, only a bid arrived at in accordance with the arrangements. But arrangements are not bid-rigging arrangements if, under them, the person requesting bids would be informed of them at or before the time when a bid is made. (see s 188(6)). The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice has described “bid rigging” in the following terms: Bid rigging is the way that conspiring competitors effectively raise prices where purchasers — often federal, state, or local governments — acquire goods or services by soliciting competing bids. Essentially, competitors agree in advance who will submit the winning bid on a contract being let through the competitive bidding process. As with price fixing, it is not necessary that all bidders participate in the conspiracy.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

355

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRA.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRB

[CCA.44ZZRA.60]

Bid rigging also takes many forms, but bid-rigging conspiracies usually fall into one or more of the following categories: • Bid Suppression: In bid suppression schemes, one or more competitors who otherwise would be expected to bid, or who have previously bid, agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a previously submitted bid so that the designated winning competitor’s bid will be accepted. • Complementary Bidding: Complementary bidding (also known as “cover” or “courtesy” bidding) occurs when some competitors agree to submit bids that either are too high to be accepted or contain special terms that will not be acceptable to the buyer. Such bids are not intended to secure the buyer’s acceptance, but are merely designed to give the appearance of genuine competitive bidding. Complementary bidding schemes are the most frequently occurring forms of bid rigging, and they defraud purchasers by creating the appearance of competition to conceal secretly inflated prices. • Bid Rotation: In bid rotation schemes, all conspirators submit bids but take turns being the low bidder. The terms of the rotation may vary; for example, competitors may take turns on contracts according to the size of the contract, allocating equal amounts to each conspirator or allocating volumes that correspond to the size of each conspirator company. A strict bid rotation pattern defies the law of chance and suggests collusion is taking place. • Subcontracting: Subcontracting arrangements are often part of a bid-rigging scheme. Competitors who agree not to bid or to submit a losing bid frequently receive subcontracts or supply contracts in exchange from the successful low bidder. In some schemes, a low bidder will agree to withdraw its bid in favor of the next low bidder in exchange for a lucrative subcontract that divides the illegally obtained higher price between them. Almost all forms of bid-rigging schemes have one thing in common: an agreement among some or all of the bidders which predetermines the winning bidder and limits or eliminates competition among the conspiring vendors: US DoJ, Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes: What They Are and What to Look For - An Antitrust Primer. But note [CCA.44ZZRJ.100]. [CCA.44ZZRA.80]

Further reading

Miller: Miller’s Australian Competition Law & Policy (Thomson Reuters, 2nd ed, 2012) Ch 6; Beaton-Wells & Fisse: Australian Cartel Regulation (Cambridge University Press 2011); Stewart, “Cartels, Extraterritoriality, and the Harper Review – the Search for a Connecting Factor” (2015) 43 ABLR 474; Doherty, “Enforcements and Remedies: Cartel Conduct: A Survey of the ACCC’s Enforcement Activity” (2014) 22 AJCCL 46; Ferguson M and Meacock S “Cartel Conduct: A Survey of the ACCC’s Enforcement Activity” (2014) 22 AJCCL 46. 44ZZRB

Definitions

In this Division: annual turnover, of a body corporate during a 12-month period, means the sum of the values of all the supplies that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have made, or are likely to make, during the 12-month period, other than: (a) supplies made from any of those bodies corporate to any other of those bodies corporate; or (b) supplies that are input taxed; or (c) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999); or (d) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the body corporate carries on; or

356

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRC

(e) supplies that are not connected with Australia. Expressions used in this definition that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning as in that Act. benefit includes any advantage and is not limited to property. bid includes: (a) (b)

tender; and the taking, by a potential bidder or tenderer, of a preliminary step in a bidding or tendering process.

evidential burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist. likely, in relation to any of the following: (a) a supply of goods or services; (b) an acquisition of goods or services; (c) the production of goods; (d) the capacity to supply services; includes a possibility that is not remote. obtaining includes: (a) obtaining for another person; and (b) inducing a third person to do something that results in another person obtaining. party has a meaning affected by section 44ZZRC. production includes manufacture, processing, treatment, assembly, disassembly, renovation, restoration, growing, raising, mining, extraction, harvesting, fishing, capturing and gathering. [S 44ZZRB insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRB COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRB.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including removing the definition of the term “likely” in this section. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not this and other amendments to the cartel provisions are proceeded with in the form set out in the exposure draft remains an open question. 44ZZRC

Extended meaning of party

For the purposes of this Division, if a body corporate is a party to a contract, arrangement or understanding (otherwise than because of this section), each body corporate related to that body corporate is taken to be a party to that contract, arrangement or understanding. [S 44ZZRC insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

357

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRB.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRC.20]

SECTION 44ZZRC COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRC.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRC has the effect of deeming related bodies corporate to be parties to cartels if any one of the related bodies corporate is a party to a cartel. This provision will, for instance, draw local subsidiaries of international corporations involved in global cartels into the group of potential defendants. It will also draw international parent corporations in where the cartel is a domestic Australian cartel in which its local subsidiary is allegedly involved. For an example of circumstances in which resort to this provision, had it been in place, may have assisted the ACCC, see ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304. Section 4A sets out the circumstances in which bodies corporate are deemed to be related, but does not define the term “body corporate”: see [CCA.4A.40] and [CCA.50.440]. 44ZZRD

Cartel provisions

(1) [Definition: cartel provision] For the purposes of this Act, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is a cartel provision if: (a) either of the following conditions is satisfied in relation to the provision: (i) the purpose/effect condition set out in subsection (2); (ii) the purpose condition set out in subsection (3); and (b) the competition condition set out in subsection (4) is satisfied in relation to the provision. Purpose/effect condition (2) The purpose/effect condition is satisfied if the provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly: (a) fixing, controlling or maintaining; or (b) providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of; the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to: (c) goods or services supplied, or likely to be supplied, by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (d) goods or services acquired, or likely to be acquired, by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (e) goods or services re-supplied, or likely to be re-supplied, by persons or classes of persons to whom those goods or services were supplied by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (f) goods or services likely to be re-supplied by persons or classes of persons to whom those goods or services are likely to be supplied by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding. Note 1: The purpose/effect condition can be satisfied when a provision is considered with related provisions—see subsection (8).

Note 2: Party has an extended meaning—see section 44ZZRC. Purpose condition (3) The purpose condition is satisfied if the provision has the purpose of directly or indirectly: (a) preventing, restricting or limiting: (i) the production, or likely production, of goods by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (ii) the capacity, or likely capacity, of any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding to supply services; or

358

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRD

(iii)

the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services to persons or classes of persons by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (b) allocating between any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding: (i) the persons or classes of persons who have acquired, or who are likely to acquire, goods or services from any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (ii) the persons or classes of persons who have supplied, or who are likely to supply, goods or services to any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (iii) the geographical areas in which goods or services are supplied, or likely to be supplied, by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (iv) the geographical areas in which goods or services are acquired, or likely to be acquired, by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (c) ensuring that in the event of a request for bids in relation to the supply or acquisition of goods or services: (i) one or more parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding bid, but one or more other parties do not; or (ii) 2 or more parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding bid, but at least 2 of them do so on the basis that one of those bids is more likely to be successful than the others; or (iii) 2 or more parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding bid, but not all of those parties proceed with their bids until the suspension or finalisation of the request for bids process; or (iv) 2 or more parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding bid and proceed with their bids, but at least 2 of them proceed with their bids on the basis that one of those bids is more likely to be successful than the others; or (v) 2 or more parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding bid, but a material component of at least one of those bids is worked out in accordance with the contract, arrangement or understanding. Note 1: For example, subparagraph (3)(a)(iii) will not apply in relation to a roster for the supply of after-hours medical services if the roster does not prevent, restrict or limit the supply of services. Note 2: The purpose condition can be satisfied when a provision is considered with related provisions—see subsection (9). Note 3: Party has an extended meaning—see section 44ZZRC.

Competition condition (4) The competition condition is satisfied if at least 2 of the parties to the contract, arrangement understanding: (a) are or are likely to be; or (b) but for any contract, arrangement or understanding, would be or would be likely to be; in competition with each other in relation to: (c) if paragraph (2)(c) or (3)(b) applies in relation to a supply, or likely supply, of goods services—the supply of those goods or services; or (d) if paragraph (2)(d) or (3)(b) applies in relation to an acquisition, or likely acquisition, goods or services—the acquisition of those goods or services; or (e) if paragraph (2)(e) or (f) applies in relation to a re-supply, or likely re-supply, of goods services—the supply of those goods or services to that re-supplier; or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

or

or of or

359

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

if subparagraph (3)(a)(i) applies in relation to preventing, restricting or limiting the production, or likely production, of goods—the production of those goods; or if subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) applies in relation to preventing, restricting or limiting the capacity, or likely capacity, to supply services—the supply of those services; or if subparagraph (3)(a)(iii) applies in relation to preventing, restricting or limiting the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services—the supply of those goods or services; or if paragraph (3)(c) applies in relation to a supply of goods or services—the supply of those goods or services; or if paragraph (3)(c) applies in relation to an acquisition of goods or services—the acquisition of those goods or services.

Note: Party has an extended meaning—see section 44ZZRC. Immaterial whether identities of persons can be ascertained (5) It is immaterial whether the identities of the persons referred to in paragraph (2)(e) or (f) or subparagraph (3)(a)(iii), (b)(i) or (ii) can be ascertained. Recommending prices etc (6) For the purposes of this Division, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is not taken: (a) to have the purpose mentioned in subsection (2); or (b) to have, or be likely to have, the effect mentioned in subsection (2); by reason only that it recommends, or provides for the recommending of, a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit. Immaterial whether particular circumstances or particular conditions (7) It is immaterial whether: (a) for the purposes of subsection (2), subparagraph (3)(a)(iii) and paragraphs (3)(b) and (c)—a supply or acquisition happens, or a likely supply or likely acquisition is to happen, in particular circumstances or on particular conditions; and (b) for the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(i)—the production happens, or the likely production is to happen, in particular circumstances or on particular conditions; and (c) for the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(ii)—the capacity exists, or the likely capacity is to exist, in particular circumstances or on particular conditions. Considering related provisions—purpose/effect condition (8) For the purposes of this Division, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is taken to have the purpose, or to have or be likely to have the effect, mentioned in subsection (2) if the provision, when considered together with any or all of the following provisions: (a) the other provisions of the contract, arrangement or understanding; (b) the provisions of another contract, arrangement or understanding, if the parties to that other contract, arrangement or understanding consist of or include at least one of the parties to the first-mentioned contract, arrangement or understanding; has that purpose, or has or is likely to have that effect. Considering related provisions—purpose condition (9) For the purposes of this Division, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is taken to have the purpose mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (3) if the provision, when considered together with any or all of the following provisions: (a) the other provisions of the contract, arrangement or understanding;

360

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRD

(b)

the provisions of another contract, arrangement or understanding, if the parties to that other contract, arrangement or understanding consist of or include at least one of the parties to the first-mentioned contract, arrangement or understanding; has that purpose. Purpose/effect of a provision (10) For the purposes of this Division, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is not to be taken not to have the purpose, or not to have or to be likely to have the effect, mentioned in subsection (2) by reason only of: (a) the form of the provision; or (b) the form of the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (c) any description given to the provision, or to the contract, arrangement or understanding, by the parties. Purpose of a provision (11) For the purposes of this Division, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding is not to be taken not to have the purpose mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (3) by reason only of: (a) the form of the provision; or (b) the form of the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (c) any description given to the provision, or to the contract, arrangement or understanding, by the parties. [S 44ZZRD insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRD COMMENTARY Context ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.20] Summary ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRD.40] Proposals for Change ............................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRD.60] Concept: has or is likely to have ............................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRD.80] Competition – principals and agents ...................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.90] Concept: purpose ................................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRD.100] Concept: effect ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.120] Concept: fixing, controlling or maintaining ........................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.140] Concept: collusive bidding .................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.160] Concept: production ............................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRD.180] Concept: in competition with each other .............................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRD.200] Concept: territorial nexus ..................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.220] Concepts: providing for ........................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRD.260] Recommended price agreements ........................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRD.280] Arrangements promoting competition .................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRD.300] Cases ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.320] Further reading ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRD.340]

[CCA.44ZZRD.20]

Context

The modern focus internationally on cartels is largely due to work by the OECD. The OECD’s seminal 1998 Recommendation of the Council Concerning Effective Action Against Hard Core Cartels stated: Member countries should ensure that their competition laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels. In particular, their laws should provide for: a) effective sanctions, of a kind and at a level adequate to deter firms and individuals from participating in such cartels; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

361

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRD.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRD.20] b) enforcement procedures and institutions with powers adequate to detect and remedy hard core cartels, including powers to obtain documents and information and to impose penalties for non-compliance.

As the OECD noted in its 2000 Ministerial Report on Hard Core Cartels: cartels that fix prices, whether through explicit arrangements between competitors or through collusive bidding or tenders, are regarded as among the most egregious violations of competition law. They raise prices making products unavailable to some purchasers and unnecessarily expensive for others. They result in the participants profiting at the expense of customers in a manner widely regarded as fraudulent. It was the United States that first developed jurisprudence in relation to cartels. Although the Sherman Act did not differentiate in its treatment of differing types of anticompetitive combinations, the courts quickly developed evidentiary rules that classified cartel conduct as so inherently likely to be anticompetitive that mere proof of the existence of them is sufficient to establish a contravention. As Douglas J said in United States v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co 310 US 150 (1940) at 225-226 n 59: Price-fixing agreements may or may not be aimed at complete elimination of price competition. The group making those agreements may or may not have power to control the market. But the fact that the group cannot control the market prices does not necessarily mean that the agreement as to prices has no utility to the members of the combination … Whatever economic justification particular price-fixing agreements may be thought to have, the law does not permit an inquiry into their reasonableness. They are all banned because of their actual or potential threat to the central nervous system of the economy. Although the original Australian competition statute, the Australian Industries Preservation Act had provided that any person who made or entered a contract with intent to restrain trade or commerce to the detriment of the public was guilty of an offence, the Act was emasculated by the High Court’s then view that, if a price agreed between competitors was fair it could not be a detriment to the public to charge that price: Attorney-General (Cth) v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73; (1911) 14 CLR 387. This approach was explicitly rejected in the United States v Trenton Potteries Co 273 US 392 (1927). When the Trade Practices Act was introduced in 1974 it did not contain a specific prohibition against price fixing or any other cartel conduct. However, when the Act was overhauled in 1977 explicit prohibitions against both price fixing and exclusionary provisions were introduced. These prohibitions were significantly expanded into the current broadly drafted prohibition on cartel conduct, with the introduction of criminal sanctions, in 2009. By then the focus on hard core cartels, which continues today, was clear. As the former ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel AO, stated when the International Competition Network decided to establish a Cartels Working Group in 2004: Cartels are a cancer on the economy, a silent extortion and that is why, as far as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is concerned, protecting the Australian public from the harmful effects of domestic and international cartels is amongst our highest priorities. Cartel conduct can take many forms. In its 1998 Recommendation of the Council Concerning Effective Action Against Hard Core Cartels the OECD describes a cartel as: an anticompetitive agreement, anticompetitive concerted practice, or anticompetitive arrangement by competitors to fix prices, make rigged bids (collusive tenders), establish output restrictions or quotas, or share or divide markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or lines of commerce. For further information about the context for and exploration of the Australian position in relation to cartels see Miller’s Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012). [CCA.44ZZRD.40] Summary Section 44ZZRD defines the term “cartel provision” for both civil and criminal prosecution purposes. It replaces and expands on s 45A, although is no less turgid than the provision it replaced. Section 44ZZRD sets out two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding to be a cartel provision. First, two or more parties to the contract,

362

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRD

arrangement or understanding must be likely to be in competition with each other in relation to the supply, production or acquisition of the relevant goods or services, or likely to be in competition with each other but for the contract, arrangement or understanding: s 44ZZRD(4). Competition exists in the context of market so it is logical to assume, but not explicitly stated, that the relevant supply, production or acquisition must take place within a market as defined in s 4E. That was clearly the position in relation to price-fixing under the old s 45A: see s 45(3), ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. The term “likely” is defined to include a possibility that is not remote: s 44ZZRB Secondly, the provision must have either: • the purpose or likely effect, directly or indirectly, of fixing, controlling or maintaining: – the price of goods or services: • supplied or likely to be supplied by any of the parties (whether or not supply occurs); • acquired or likely to be acquired by any of the parties (whether or not acquisition occurs); or • re-supplied or likely to be re-supplied by third parties to whom they were supplied by any of the parties (whether or not supply occurs); – any discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to goods or services: • supplied or likely to be supplied by any of the parties (whether or not supply occurs); • acquired or likely to be acquired by any of the parties (whether or not acquisition occurs); or • re-supplied or likely to be re-supplied by third parties to whom they were supplied by any of the parties (whether or not supply occurs); or • the purpose of: – preventing, restricting or limiting production, capacity or supply of goods or services by any of the parties (whether or not production happens or capacity exists); – allocating customers or suppliers or geographic areas between any of the parties (whether or not supply occurs); or – colluding in relation to bids for the supply or acquisition of goods or services by any of the parties. In determining the purpose or likely effect of a provision, the court may take into account other provisions of the same, or any other, contract, arrangement and understanding: s 44ZZRD(8) and (9). It is the substance of the matter rather than its form that is relevant in determining the purpose or likely effect of a provision: s 44ZZRD(10) and (11). A provision will not be regarded as a cartel provision if all that it does is recommend, or provide for recommending a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit: s 44ZZRD(6). Section 44ZZRD will not apply unless there is some form of arrangement or understanding between two or more parties. There can be no arrangement or understanding unless the parties communicate with each other and a consensus is reached as to what is to be done. There must be more than a mere hope as to what might be done or happen. Independently held beliefs are not enough: Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318 at 566-567 (ALR). See also [CCA.45.180]. [CCA.44ZZRD.60]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including a number of amendments to this section designed to simplify the cartel provisions.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

363

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRD.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRD.60]

Specifically, the Harper Review recommended: • The provisions should apply to cartel conduct involving persons who compete to supply goods or services to, or acquire goods or services from, persons resident in or carrying on business within Australia. • The provisions should be confined to conduct involving firms that are actual or likely competitors, where “likely” means on the balance of probabilities. • A broad exemption should be included for joint ventures, whether for the production, supply, acquisition or marketing of goods or services, recognising that such conduct will be prohibited by s 45 of the CCA if it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. • An exemption should be included for trading restrictions that are imposed by one firm on another in connection with the supply or acquisition of goods or services (including intellectual property licensing), recognising that such conduct will be prohibited by s 45 of the CCA (or s 47 if retained) if it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The amendments proposed in the exposure draft were designed to expressly confine the application of the cartel provisions to cartel conduct affecting competition in Australian markets. Omitting minor cross referencing, they are: • At the end of s 44ZZRD(3)(a), add: (iv) ‘the acquisition, or likely acquisition, of goods or services from persons or classes of persons by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or’ • ss 44ZZRD(4)(c) to 44ZZRD(4)(e), 44ZZRD(4)(g),44ZZRD(4)(h), 44ZZRD(4)(i) and 44ZZRD(4)(j) after “services” (last occurring), insert “in trade or commerce”. • In s 44ZZRD(4)(f), after “goods” (last occurring), insert “in trade or commerce”. • Insert after s 44ZZRD(4)(h) ‘(ha) if subparagraph (3)(a)(iv) applies in relation to preventing, restricting or limiting the acquisition, or likely acquisition, of goods or services—the acquisition of those goods or services in trade or commerce; or’ • Repeal the note to s 44ZZRD(4) and insert: ‘Note 1: Party has an extended meaning—see section 44ZZRC. Note 2: Trade or commerce is defined in section 4 to mean trade or commerce within Australia or between Australia and places outside Australia.’ However, legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016. It is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not this and other amendments to the cartel provisions are proceeded with in the form set out in the exposure draft remains an open question. [CCA.44ZZRD.80]

Concept: has or is likely to have

The words “has or is likely to have” permit the court to look not only at what has been established on the facts, but also to infer, from those facts, what were likely to be the consequences of the arrangement, looking at the position at or about the time the arrangement was made. As to the link between the contract, arrangement or understanding and its likely effect, the section does not limit the means by which it may be established that the contract, arrangement or understanding produces that result. All that is required is that there be an appropriate link: ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732 (Lindgren J). The meaning of the term “likely” in the phrase “likely to have” is discussed at [CCA.45.220] and [CCA.50.120]. The term “likely” appears twice in s 44ZZRD. On the second occasion it is used in phrases such as “likely to be acquired” and “likely to be supplied”: s 44ZZRD(2). In that context “likely” has been defined as including a possibility that is not remote: s 44ZZRB. It is not enough for the ACCC to that an arrangement has the effect of controlling a component of the price. It must be likely to have the effect of controlling the overall price: ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732 (Lindgren J).

364

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRD

See generally [CCA.45.220]. [CCA.44ZZRD.90]

Competition – principals and agents

Where the contractual and fiduciary relationship between principal and agent obliges the agent to act only in the interests of the principal, the agent would lack the autonomy to compete and would therefore not be in competition with the principal. However, where the agent has sufficient autonomy under the agency agreement to act in the agent’s own interests, the mere existence of the agency relationship does not preclude the agent from competing with the principal: ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. [CCA.44ZZRD.100]

Concept: purpose

There will be no cartel unless there is a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding that meets the required purpose or effect test. The concept that a provision might have a purpose is as artificial as the concept of a corporation having a purpose. This is because a purpose must exist in the mind. It cannot exist anywhere else: Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 All ER 142; [1962] 3 WLR 694 at 804-805 (AC). Where legislative purpose is to be determined, the court must “attribute a purpose to an artificial or notional mind that is deemed responsible for [the relevant] act or omission”: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. The purpose to be identified for the application of s 44ZZRD is the purpose of the relevant provision – not the purpose of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding of which the provision forms part: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [144], [245]. Although the meaning of the term had not been finally settled prior to s 45A being repealed. Purpose refers to the “end in view” – the effect sought to be achieved by the provision – not to be confused with motive, which is the reason for seeking an outcome, rather than the outcome sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. In ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911, O’Loughlin J decided that this requires a dispassionate onlooker to stand back and make an objective assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances. If that assessment reveals, in relation to the provision under consideration, a proscribed purpose, then the provision will be taken to have that purpose. However, in ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945, Carr J decided that he was bound to apply ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 477 (FCR). In that case a full court had decided that the purpose of a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding was the subjective purpose of the parties. “Purpose” may be inferred from the nature of the arrangement, the circumstances in which it was made and its likely effect: Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165. As the court said in Ashton v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (NZ) [1975] 2 NZLR 717; [1975] STC 471; [1975] 1 WLR 1615; [1975] 3 All ER 225; (1975) 5 ATR 411; 119 SJ 809; [1975] TR 233 at 1621 (WLR): “If an arrangement has a … particular effect, then that will be its purpose and oral evidence to show that it has a different purpose or different effect to that which is shown by the arrangement itself is irrelevant”. While the best evidence of purpose might be the statements made by that person in the witness box, such statements must be tested closely and received with the greatest caution: Pascoe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 11 ATD 108; 30 ALJR 402 at 403 (ALJR); ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

365

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRD.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRD.100]

If a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding was entered for a purpose that comes within s 44ZZRD, then the fact that there may be a legitimate commercial purpose for the entire contract, arrangement or understanding will be irrelevant: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [158] (ATPR). A provision will be deemed to have the proscribed purpose if the provision was included in the contract, arrangement or understanding for purposes that included that particular purpose, and that purpose was a substantial one: s 4F. However, the term “substantial” is, itself, ambiguous: see [CCA.45.300]. In the first case under the cartel provisions, Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14, Gordon J found that the corporate respondents had the requisite purpose, applying the principles set out above. [CCA.44ZZRD.120]

Concept: effect

The effect of a provision in a contract, arrangement or understanding is the likely direct consequence of that provision – what has happened or is likely to happen, objectively assessed and ignoring the subjective state of mind of the relevant parties: ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911 at [104] (FCA). In determining the effect of a provision, regard is to be had to the effect when considered together with other provisions of that or any other contract, arrangement or understanding between relevant parties: s 44ZZRD(8). This is directed at conduct of the type considered in Re British Basic Slag Ltd Agreements [1963] 1 WLR 727; [1963] 2 All ER 807 at 746 (WLR). [CCA.44ZZRD.140]

Concept: fixing, controlling or maintaining

A provision having the purpose or likely effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, re-supply or acquisition of goods or services will amount to a cartel provision. The expression “fixing, controlling or maintaining” may be a composite; a description of the particular types of provisions chosen by Parliament to deem them to have the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition: ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 (Logan J). Fix The term “fix” is not used in a technical sense. The primary meaning is, as set out in The Macquarie Dictionary, “to make fast, firm or stable”: Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078. A price may be “fixed” even if all that is proposed is an increase to a certain figure, without any provision as to when, by what machinery or what amount, a further change may take place: TPC v Parkfield Operations Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 140; 59 ALR 589; [1985] ATPR 40-526 (on appeal [1985] ATPR 40-639; (1985) 7 FCR 534); Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078. Not every determination of a price following discussion between competitors, will amount to a price “fixing”. That is because the word “fixing” takes colour from its general context and from the words “controlling or maintaining” used with it. There must be an element of intention or likelihood to affect price competition before price “fixing” can be established, but this will often be a matter of inference, not requiring direct evidence to establish it: Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70; 5 TPR 348; 48 ALR 361; [1983] ATPR 40-367 at 72 (FLR). Where ranges of pricing with a ceiling or floor are fixed but with no greater precision, that is more aptly described as “controlling” the price rather that fixing it: ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 (Logan J).

366

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

s 44ZZRD

Control The term “control” has its natural or ordinary meaning which is “to exercise restraint or direction over” (The Macquarie Dictionary) or “to exercise restraint or direction upon the free action of” (The Oxford English Dictionary) a person or thing. There are degrees of control and there may be control although the “restraint” or “direction” is not total. An arrangement or understanding has the effect of “controlling price” if it restrains a freedom that would otherwise exist as to a price to be charged: ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945 at [195] (ATPR); ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468; [1999] ATPR 41-732 (Lindgren J); ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911. Specificity as to price is not a necessary element of “controlling” price because to insist on such a requirement would be to introduce an unauthorised general limitation and would allow the statutory prohibition to be easily circumvented: ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732 (Lindgren J); ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J). However, total control is not necessary: ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42. Nevertheless, it is not enough for the ACCC to establish that an arrangement has the effect of controlling a component of the price. It must be likely to have the effect of controlling the overall price; ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732 (Lindgren J); ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 (Logan J). Note however, ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42, in which the component argument was unsuccessful. An arrangement or understanding which no one intends, and is not objectively likely, to have any effect on price, but which, by reason of unforeseeable supervening circumstances, has had that effect, is not caught, but putting to one side de minimis cases, the degree of control, although relevant to penalty, is not relevant to the issue of contravention: ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732; [1999] FCA 954 (Lindgren J); quoted with approval in ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42. The likelihood that an arrangement or understanding will have the relevant effect is to be assessed as at the time when the arrangement is made or the understanding is arrived at: ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732; [1999] FCA 954 (Lindgren J). For the purpose of this prohibition, as it appeared in s 45A, a distinction between a “bid” and a “price” is not relevant because a bid is a specified price at which goods or services are “to be supplied”, but s 44ZZRD refers to goods or services “likely to be supplied”, but the result would seem to be the same: ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 (Logan J); ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J). Maintain As to the term “maintaining”, Lockhart J said in Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318 at 449 (FLR): In my view “maintain”, where used in s 45A, has a similar connotation to the verb “fix” in that it involves some element of continuity, not merely being momentary or transitory. Generally, to maintain a price assumes that it has been fixed beforehand. However, in ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; [1999] ATPR 41-732, Lindgren J suggested that it is arguable that a price would be maintained, even if not fixed beforehand, if tenderers were to reach an understanding that a component sufficiently influential on the price were to be agreed on. [CCA.44ZZRD.160] Concept: collusive bidding The terms “bid rigging” and “collusive bidding” are not used in the Act, although the term “bid” is defined in s 44ZZRB to include tenders and steps that precede a tender. They are colloquial terms of describing conduct to which s 44ZZRD(3)(c) applies; being conduct in the event of a request for bids for the supply or acquisition of goods or services by which: • one or more parties to the arrangement bidding but others not doing so;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

367

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.44ZZRD.160]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRD.160]

• some parties to the arrangement lodging less competitive bids; • some parties to the arrangement withdraw from the bidding process; • some parties participating in the bidding process proceed with their bids but in a manner that favours other bidders; and • parties agreed on a material component of the bid in advance. The explicit reference to bids in s 44ZZRD(3) avoids a potential argument, advanced unsuccessfully, in ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367, that the price fixing provisions of s 45A were inapplicable to a bid. The prohibition does not apply in the absence of a call for bids (“request”). However, the provision does not require that call to be directed to the parties to the alleged contract, arrangement or understanding. There is nothing in the language of the provision to suggest that the bid rigging prohibition is somehow restricted to only those bidders or potential bidders who were within the scope of the process: Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. Nor does the section restrict the operation of s 44ZZRD(3)(c)(i) or (iii) to instances where the request for bids is made after the contact, arrangement or understanding is made or arrived at by the parties: Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCAFC 155. However, the request for bids must relate to the supply or acquisition of goods or services. Where the relevant transaction is the sale of shares in a corporation, the request is in relation to the sale of services, because shares in a corporation are services, not goods: see [CCA.4.500]. Whether or not the cartel provision applies in relation to the acquisition of shares is an open question. In TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1990) 22 FCR 305; [1990] ATPR 41-001, Lockhart J, focusing on the definition of the term ‘acquire’ in s 4, concluded that shares were not goods or services for the purposes of that definition, but that would not seem to be determinative. There is no doubt that shares are a chose in action – a right in relation to personal property. A share comprises “a collection of rights and obligations relating to an interest in a company of an economic and proprietary character, but not constituting a debt”: Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (In Liq) [2001] HCA 31; 207 CLR 165; citing Pennington, “Can shares in companies be defined?” (1989) 10 The Company Lawyer 140. In Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14, Gordon J decided that shares were services within the meaning of s 44ZZRD(3)(c), but without explicitly referring to the definition of the term “acquire” or to s 4C. An appeal was lodged but never determined because judgment was set aside by consent under the Federal Court Rules: Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. Section 44ZZRD(3)(c) is not limited territorially to requests for bids in Australia. The relevant territorial nexus is a matter to be determined by the application of s 5: Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. See generally [CCA.44ZZRA.60]. [CCA.44ZZRD.180]

Concept: production

The definition of a cartel provision includes provisions between likely competitors to prevent, limit or restrict production: s 44ZZRD(3)(a)(i). The term “production” is defined to include manufacture, processing, treatment, assembly, disassembly, renovation, restoration, growing, raising, mining, extraction, harvesting, fishing, capturing and gathering: s 44ZZRB. The term therefore covers virtually every form of commercial endeavour. For an example of the type of conduct that could come within s 44ZZRD(3)(a)(i), see ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519. In that case, the ACCC failed to establish that the parties had come to an arrangement or understanding. [CCA.44ZZRD.200]

Concept: in competition with each other

A provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding will not be a cartel provision unless at least two of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding are likely to be in competition with each other in

368

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRD

relation to the supply, production or acquisition of the relevant goods or services, or likely to be in competition with each other but for the contract, arrangement or understanding: s 44ZZRD(4). Section 44ZZRC deems related bodies corporate to be parties to cartels if any one of the related bodies corporate is a party to a cartel. The likelihood of parties being in competition with each other in any relevant market is a question of fact. In J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758, the appellant argued, unsuccessfully, that another freight company which it sought to encourage to lodge a cover bid with one of the appellant’s customers, was not in competition with the appellant because the other company had a practice of not tendering against the appellant. In ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367, the respondents argued, unsuccessfully, that they were not in competition with one another in relation to a tender, because it was clear from the arrangement that one wanted to win the tender and the other did not. In Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14, a case involving bids for the purchase of a company in which a private equity company acquired the company and on-sold it to the respondent under an arrangement between them to do so, the court found that the respondents would have been likely competing bidders had it not been for the arrangement, even though neither was included by the seller in the sale process, although the ultimate orders in that case were subsequently vacated by consent: Bradken Ltd v Norcast S.ar.L [2013] FCAFC 123. In that case, the presiding judge thought it sufficient if there was a possibility, not remote, that the parties would compete. That is not a view likely to be followed. [CCA.44ZZRD.220]

Concept: territorial nexus

It seems clear that, prior to the insertion of the cartel provisions in 2011, the price fixing provisions (s 45 as affected by s 45A) were to be applied only in relation to markets in Australia. This was because s 45(3) provides that the term “competition” means competition in any market, and s 4E defines that term “market” to mean a market in Australia: see ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 (Perram J); Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAC 136; (2009) 260 ALR 244; [2009] ATPR 42-297; Auskay International Manufacturing and Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] FCAFC 96; (2010) 188 FCR 351. It did not matter where the conduct occurred (see s 5), but it had to relate to competition in a market in Australia, not just have an effect in Australia. In Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14, a decision (ultimately set aside by consent) in which the conduct did not occur in relation to a market in Australia. Gordon J decided that “no similar territorial limitation is to be found in s 44ZZRD(3)(c) and no limitation should be implied”. An alternative view is that, whether or not parties are, or are likely to be in competition with each other in relation to the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services (as required by s 44ZZRD(4)), is a question to be determined by considering the market or markets in which they compete, or are likely to compete. If none of those markets is in Australia, it is arguable that the conduct would not contravene the cartel provisions, unless a contrary intention can be divined from s 6(2)(b). The limits of extraterritorial operation of the Act are set out in s 5, and the Act does not, divined from s 6(2)(b). The limits of extraterritorial operation of the Act are set out in s 5, and the Act does not, as Perram J said in ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, import the effects doctrine applicable in the USA. [CCA.44ZZRD.260]

Concepts: providing for

A provision may be a cartel provision if it provides for the fixing of a relevant price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit. A provision will not provide for the fixing of a price if all that is involved is an exchange of pricing information. It requires “arranging for” or “stipulating” in the sense of agreeing on the price that is to be charged. It must be a means to an end: Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078; TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

369

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRD.260]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRD

[CCA.44ZZRD.260]

In Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078 the court gave, as an example, an arrangement that prices would increase by a particular formula, or an agreement that if one competitor increases prices, others would follow. [CCA.44ZZRD.280]

Recommended price agreements

Section 44ZZRD(6) provides that a provision is not to be taken to be a cartel provision by reason only that it recommends or provides for recommending a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit. In that regard it is the substance of the matter that is relevant; not the form in which the price is expressed: s 44ZZRD(11). The Act provides no guidance on who bears the onus in this regard. Presumably, if the respondent asserts that the relevant price is only a recommended price the ACCC or DPP bears the onus of establishing that the provision is more than a recommended price. In the early years of the Act a substantial number of recommended price agreements, relating both to small businesses and to trade associations, were submitted to the Commission for authorisation. Some are summarised in earlier printed editions of this work. However the prospect of a trade association now obtaining authorisation for issuing recommended prices is quite remote. [CCA.44ZZRD.300]

Arrangements promoting competition

The courts have not determined whether provisions which come within the strict terms of s 44ZZRD will be regarded as cartel provisions even if the arrangement promotes, rather than restricts, competition, but that seems to be the result. In Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318, Lockhart J acknowledged the illogicality of such an outcome. He said (at 448 (FLR)): It is important to distinguish between arrangements (I use this expression for convenience to encompass also contracts and undertakings) which restrain price competition and arrangements which merely incidentally affect it or have some connexion with it. Not every arrangement between competitors which has some possible impact on price is per se unlawful under the section. Nor in my view was s 45A introduced by Parliament to make arrangements unlawful which affect price by improving competition. It is fundamental to both ss 45A and s 45 that the relevant conduct, in purpose or effect, substantially lessens competition or would be likely to do so. If competition is improved by an arrangement I cannot perceive how it could be characterized as a price fixing arrangement within the ambit of those sections. … If competitors make an arrangement to establish a better market by, for example, forming an organization through which they operate by exchanging information in ways that make prices more competitive, I do not see how such an arrangement is, per se, prohibited by s 45A. My approach to the construction and operation of s 45A is generally in accord with the approach taken by the courts of the United States of America in decisions under the Sherman Act 1980. They reflect the concern of those courts to carefully consider the relevant conduct before characterizing it as an arrangement in restraint of price competition and they distinguish between arrangements which directly or indirectly restrain price competition and those which merely incidentally affect it. On appeal, Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70; 5 TPR 348; 48 ALR 361; [1983] ATPR 40-367, the full court left the question open whether Lockhart J was correct. In United States v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co (1940) 310 US 150, a decision referred to by Lockhart J, Douglas J said (n 59 at 225-226): Price-fixing agreements may or may not be aimed at complete elimination of price competition. The group making those agreements may or may not have power to control the market. But the fact that the group cannot control the market prices does not necessarily mean that the agreement as to prices has no utility to the members of the combination. The effectiveness of price-fixing agreements is dependent on many factors, such as competitive tactics, position in the industry, the formula underlying pricing

370

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRF

policies. Whatever economic justification particular price-fixing agreements may be thought to have, the law does not permit an inquiry into their reasonableness. They are all banned because of their actual or potential threat to the central nervous system of the economy. [CCA.44ZZRD.320]

Cases

Cases decided under other provisions of the Act now covered by s 44ZZRD are: • price fixing – see [CCA.44ZZRJ.120] and [CCA.44ZZRJ.140]; • market sharing – [CCA.44ZZRJ.180]; and • non-compete & collusive bidding – [CCA.45.660], [CCA.44ZZRJ.160]. [CCA.44ZZRD.340]

Further reading

Cao HY, “Australia’s Protected Cartel Information Scheme: Has the Right Balance been Struck?” (2016) AJCCL 197; Gilsenan R, “Could the Harper Review Recommendations Revive Private Enforcement of Cartel Provisions” (2016) AJCCL 6; Parry & Hobson, “A Snuggle for survival – the Paradox of section 44ZZRD(3)” (2014) 22 AJCCL 201. 44ZZRE

Meaning of expressions in other provisions of this Act

In determining the meaning of an expression used in a provision of this Act (other than this Division, subsection 6(2C), paragraph 76(1A)(aa) or subsection 93AB(1A)), this Division is to be disregarded. [S 44ZZRE insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SUBDIVISION B – OFFENCES ETC. 44ZZRF

Making a contract etc containing a cartel provision

Offence (1) A corporation commits an offence if: (a) the corporation makes a contract or arrangement, or arrives at an understanding; and (b) the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) [Fault element is knowledge or belief] The fault element for paragraph (1)(b) is knowledge or belief. Penalty (3) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding the greater of the following: (a) $10,000,000; (b) if the court can determine the total value of the benefits that: (i) have been obtained by one or more persons; and (ii) are reasonably attributable to the commission of the offence; 3 times that total value; (c) if the court cannot determine the total value of those benefits—10% of the corporation’s annual turnover during the 12-month period ending at the end of the month in which the corporation committed, or began committing, the offence. Indictable offence (4) An offence against subsection (1) is an indictable offence. [S 44ZZRF insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

371

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRD.340]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRF

[CCA.44ZZRF.20]

SECTION 44ZZRF COMMENTARY Concept: corporation’s knowledge or belief ............................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRF.40] ACCC – DPP immunity policy ................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRF.60] ACCC – DPP protocol ............................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRF.80] Indictable offence .................................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRF.100] Penalties and other consequences ....................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRF.120] Time limits ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRF.140] Cases .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRF.160]

[CCA.44ZZRF.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRF makes it a criminal offence to enter into a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision. The term “cartel provision” is defined in s 44ZZRD. Although the section simply states that it is an offence to make such a contract, arrangement or understanding, more needs to be established because the Australian Criminal Code Act (1995) (Cth) applies: Criminal Code cl 2.2. Although it is not within the scope of this work to cover criminal law and practice, a brief summary is required. In relation to every offence there must be a fault element and a physical element, unless the legislation creating the offence specifically excludes the fault element: Criminal Code cl 3.1. In this case the fault element remains. It is either knowledge or belief: s 44ZZRF(2). That means that an offence is committed if the firm either knows or believes that it is entering a contract, arrangement or understanding and that the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision. Knowledge in this context means that the firm must be proven to be aware that the relevant circumstance exists or will exist in the ordinary course of events: Criminal Code cl 5.3. A person can be criminally responsible for an offence even if, at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, the person is mistaken about, or ignorant of, the existence or content of an Act that directly or indirectly creates the offence or directly or indirectly affects the scope or operation of the offence: Criminal Code cl 9.3. Executives and other individuals who are involved in a contravention are also guilty of an offence: s 79(1). A corporation may be found guilty even if all other parties to the cartel provision have been acquitted as long as a finding of guilt would not be inconsistent with their acquittal: s 44ZZRH. While a prosecution is being heard the court may, in appropriate circumstances, grant injunctions and disqualify executives involved from being involved in the management of corporations pending completion of the trial: s 44ZZRI. Although the court has these powers, it is unlikely that they would be exercised except in extraordinary circumstances. There are a number of exceptions to the offence. They are: • joint venture contracts (but not arrangements or understandings unless intended to be a contract) for production and/or supply of goods or services: s 44ZZRO; • contracts, arrangements and understandings insofar as they: – fix prices for collectively acquired goods or services or for the joint advertising of such goods or services: s 44ZZRV; – have the purpose or likely effect of price fixing and a collective bargaining notification in force under s 93AD: s 44ZZRL; or – only involve parties which are related bodies corporate: s 44ZZRN; – provide for resale price maintenance conduct covered by s 48 or are the subject of an authorisation: s 44ZZRR; – provide for exclusive dealing conduct covered by s 47 or are the subject of an authorisation or notification: s 44ZZRS; – provide directly or indirectly for an acquisition of share capital or assets: s 44ZZRU(1);

372

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRF

– are dual listed company arrangements covered by s 49 or the subject of an authorisation: s 44ZZRT; and • are contracts (but not arrangements or understandings) that are subject to authorisation and the application is made within 14 days of the contract: s 44ZZRM. Section 44ZZRC provides that, if a body corporate is a party to a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision, each related body corporate is taken to also be a party. However, for the purposes of criminal responsibility, the prosecution would need to prove the fault element (knowledge or belief), in relation to those related bodies corporate. [CCA.44ZZRF.40]

Concept: corporation’s knowledge or belief

A corporation is deemed to have the requisite knowledge or belief if a director, employee or agent of the corporation, engaging in the relevant conduct within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, had the requisite knowledge or belief: s 84(1). [CCA.44ZZRF.60]

ACCC – DPP immunity policy

See [CCA.76.760]. [CCA.44ZZRF.80]

ACCC – DPP protocol

As contravention of s 44ZZRF is a criminal offence, prosecutions are handled by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) rather than the ACCC. However, it is the ACCC that investigates alleged cartels and gathers the evidence needed for a conviction. Although the Act does not differentiate between different levels of cartel behaviour, the focus of attention in relation to criminalisation has been on “hard core” or “serious” cartel conduct. In order to reflect this, the ACCC and the DPP have negotiated a protocol that includes an understanding about the types of cartels that will be considered for criminal prosecution. The protocol, reflected in a formal Memorandum of Understanding, is published on the CDPP’s website at: http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Media/Releases/20081201-ACCC-and-CDPP-Cartel-Conduct-ImmunityMOU.pdf. The MOU provides that the ACCC will not ordinarily refer relatively minor cartel conduct to the DPP for consideration for prosecution. Referrals will concentrate on conduct that can cause large scale or serious economic harm. In deciding whether to refer a matter, the MOU states that the ACCC will have regard to whether: • the conduct was longstanding or had, or could have, a significant impact on the market in which the conduct occurred; • the conduct caused, or could cause, significant detriment to the public, or a class thereof, or caused, or could cause, significant loss or damage to one or more customers of the alleged participants; • one or more of the alleged participants has previously been found by a court to have participated in, or has admitted to participating in, either criminal or civil cartel conduct; • the value of the affected commerce exceeded or would exceed $1 million within a 12 month period (that is, where the combined value for all cartel participants of the specific line of commerce affected by the cartel would exceed $1 million within a 12 month period); and • in the case of bid-rigging, the value of the bid or series of bids exceeded $1 million within a 12 month period. [CCA.44ZZRF.100]

Indictable offence

An offence against s 44ZZRF is an indictable offence. Consequently the normal criminal rules relating to committal hearings before a magistrate and, if committed, a jury trial in the Federal Court of Australia apply.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

373

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRF.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRF [CCA.44ZZRF.120]

[CCA.44ZZRF.120] Penalties and other consequences

The maximum penalty for corporations is the same as for a civil contravention. It is the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit reasonably attributed to the cartel or, where gain cannot be readily ascertained, 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate in the first 12 months of the cartel: s 44ZZRF(3). The position with executives and other individuals is different. They can be sentenced to up to ten years jail and ordered to pay a fine of up to 2,000 penalty units: s 79(1). Although a jail sentence of up to ten years may be imposed, based on US experience jail terms are not likely to be of that duration. In the USA the longest jail sentence imposed up to 2009 for a single cartel offence is four years. The principles in relation to imposition of penalties are set out at [CCA.76.600] and [CCA.79.240]. Directors and executives found guilty of a cartel offence cannot be indemnified for their defence costs or any penalty by either their employer or an insurer. In addition, those found guilty of a cartel offence may be disqualified from managing corporations: s 86E. Other limitations generally applicable to those found guilty of a crime, such as visa restrictions, may also apply. For instance, US immigration law bans persons who have been found guilty of certain offences, including a cartel offence, from entering the USA even for short business trips. Where the cartel operated across national borders, there is the possibility of extradition to face trial in another country in which the cartel operated. The court also has power, at the completion of a trial, to grant injunctions, order community service, make a disqualification or publication order, or make other compensatory remedial orders: s 44ZZRI. This power would appear to be available even if the accused is acquitted, although it would only be in extraordinary circumstances that the power would be exercised. Deterrence, particularly general deterrence, is the primary principle in the imposition of penalties for cartels. Two conclusions flow from that. First, penalties need to be substantial and significant. This is reflected in the size of the maximum penalty set by Parliament. However, it also follows logically from the fact that cartels are difficult to detect and public enforcement often only occurs as a result of a tip off. Given these difficulties and the potential for large profits, there is a chance that those in the marketplace might be prepared to factor in the risk of a low penalty as a business cost. That would be inimical to the statutory purpose of ensuring that cartel conduct does not occur. The penalty must be sufficiently high, so that a business, acting rationally and in its own best interest, will not be prepared to treat the risk of such a penalty as a business cost: ACCC v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1425; [2004] ATPR 42-031 (Selway J). See also ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 254; (2005) 215 ALR 281; [2005] ATPR 42-051 (Merkel J); ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266. [CCA.44ZZRF.140]

Time limits

Although a 6 year time limit applies to civil penalty proceedings in relation to breaches of the cartel provisions (s 77(2)) prosecutions in relation to a contravention of the cartel provisions are not the subject of any time limit. [CCA.44ZZRF.160]

Cases

On 16 July 2016, the ACCC announced it had instituted the first criminal cartel case under s 44ZZRG. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, a global shipping company based in Japan, pleaded guilty to criminal cartel conduct in relation to the transportation of vehicles to Australia between July 2009 and September 2012: http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australia%E2%80%99s-first-criminal-cartel-charge-laidagainst-nyk

374

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

44ZZRG

s 44ZZRH CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRG.20]

Giving effect to a cartel provision

Offence (1) A corporation commits an offence if: (a) a contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision; and (b) the corporation gives effect to the cartel provision. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) [Fault element is knowledge or belief] The fault element for paragraph (1)(a) is knowledge or belief. Penalty (3) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding the greater of the following: (a) $10,000,000; (b) if the court can determine the total value of the benefits that: (i) have been obtained by one or more persons; and (ii) are reasonably attributable to the commission of the offence; 3 times that total value; (c) if the court cannot determine the total value of those benefits—10% of the corporation’s annual turnover during the 12-month period ending at the end of the month in which the corporation committed, or began committing, the offence. Pre-commencement contracts etc (4) Paragraph (1)(a) applies to contracts or arrangements made, or understandings arrived at, before, at or after the commencement of this section. Indictable offence (5) An offence against subsection (1) is an indictable offence. [S 44ZZRG insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRG COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRG.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRG is a parallel provision to s 44ZZRF. It provides that it is an offence to give effect to a cartel provision. The prohibition applies to cartels no matter when the offending contract, arrangement or understanding was arrived at: s 44ZZRG(4). In all other respects, the section is in the same terms as the prohibition in s 44ZZRF on entering contracts, arrangements and understandings containing a cartel provision. 44ZZRH

Determining guilt

(1) [Guilt where other parties not responsible] A corporation may be found guilty of an offence against section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG even if: (a) each other party to the contract, arrangement or understanding is a person who is not criminally responsible; or (b) subject to subsection (2), all other parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding have been acquitted of the offence.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

375

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRH Note:

[CCA.44ZZRH.20]

Party has an extended meaning—see section 44ZZRC.

(2) [Findings must be consistent] A corporation cannot be found guilty of an offence against section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG if: (a) all other parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding have been acquitted of such an offence; and (b) a finding of guilt would be inconsistent with their acquittal. [S 44ZZRH insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRH COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRH.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRH provides that a corporation may be found guilty of a cartel offence even if all other parties have been acquitted, unless a finding of guilt is inconsistent with the acquittals. The section also provides that a corporation may be found guilty of a cartel offence, even if all other parties are not criminally responsible. 44ZZRI

Court may make related civil orders

If a prosecution against a person for an offence against section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG is being, or has been, heard by a court, the court may: (a) grant an injunction under section 80 against the person in relation to: (i) the conduct that constitutes, or is alleged to constitute, the offence; or (ii) other conduct of that kind; or (b) make an order under section 86C, 86D, 86E or 87 in relation to the offence. [S 44ZZRI insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRI COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRI.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRI empowers the court, at the completion of a trial, to grant injunctions, order community service, make a disqualification or publication order, or make other compensatory remedial orders: s 44ZZRI. This power would appear to be available even if the accused is acquitted, although it would only be in extraordinary circumstances that the power would be exercised. The section also permits the court to make such orders while a prosecution is being heard.

SUBDIVISION C – CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS 44ZZRJ

Making a contract etc containing a cartel provision

A corporation contravenes this section if: (a) the corporation makes a contract or arrangement, or arrives at an understanding; and (b) the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision. Note: For enforcement, see Part VI. [S 44ZZRJ insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

376

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRJ

SECTION 44ZZRJ COMMENTARY Outline ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRJ.20] Time limits ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRJ.40] Cases – price related .............................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRJ.60] Cases – Market sharing .......................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRJ.80] “Bid rigging” cases ................................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRJ.100] International price fixing cases – s 45A ................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRJ.120] Domestic price fixing cases – old s 45A ............................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRJ.140] Collusive tender cases – old s 45A ...................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRJ.160] Market sharing cases – s 45 ................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRJ.180]

[CCA.44ZZRJ.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRJ is the civil equivalent of the criminal cartel offence provision in s 44ZZRF. If a corporation enters into a contract, arrangement or understanding (see [CCA.45.80]) containing a cartel provision and one of the exceptions noted below does not apply, the corporation will be liable to a civil penalty. In addition private injunction, damages or remedial proceedings may be taken. The difference between this and the criminal offence is that knowledge or belief is not required. One consequence would seem to be that, each related body corporate will be taken to also be a party to the cartel conduct: s 44ZZRC. The exceptions are: • joint venture contracts (but not arrangements or understandings unless intended to be a contract) for production and/or supply of goods or services: s 44ZZRP; • contracts, arrangements and understandings insofar as they: – fix prices for collectively acquired goods or services or for the joint advertising of such goods or services: s 44ZZRV; – have the purpose or likely effect of providing for price fixing to which there is a collective bargaining notification in force under s 93AD: s 44ZZRL; – only involve parties which are related bodies corporate: s 44ZZRN; – provide for resale price maintenance conduct covered by s 48 or the subject of an authorisation: s 44ZZRR; – provide for exclusive dealing conduct covered by s 47 or are the subject of an authorisation or notification: s 44ZZRS; – provide directly or indirectly for an acquisition of share capital or assets: s 44ZZRU(1); and – are dual listed company arrangements covered by s 49 or the subject of an authorisation: s 44ZZRT; • contracts (but not arrangements or understandings) that are subject to authorisation and the application is made within 14 days of the contract: s 44ZZRM; • contracts containing covenants to which s 45B applies: s 44ZZRQ. [CCA.44ZZRJ.40]

Time limits

A 6 year time limit applies to civil penalty proceedings in relation to breaches of the cartel provisions: s 77(2). Prosecutions in relation to a contravention of the cartel provisions are not the subject of any time limit. [CCA.44ZZRJ.60] Cases – price related • ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] FCA 1516. The respondent and Macquarie Bank admitted that, on a number of occasions during 2011, traders employed by them in their Singapore offices engaged in discussions with traders at other banks in attempts to

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

377

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRJ.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRJ

[CCA.44ZZRJ.60]

manipulate the setting of the Malaysian ringgit benchmark rate, thereby attempting to indirectly fix the price for Malaysian ringgit forward contracts. The banks were in competition with each other in the market for Malaysian ringgit forward contracts. Penalties totalling $9 million and $6 million imposed on the respective banks. • ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519. The ACCC failed to establish that the respondent, its managing director and a number of egg producers had engaged in cartel conduct when dealing with the oversupply of eggs and its effect on price. The ACCC failed to establish that the parties had come to an arrangement or understanding. However, one of the respondents agreed with the ACCC that he had attempted to encourage egg producers to enter into a contravening arrangement understanding to limit production or supply of eggs: see [2016] FCA 447. [CCA.44ZZRJ.80] Cases – Market sharing • ACCC v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1135. The respondents admitted to engaging in a deliberate, largely covert, long-standing understanding with another supplier to not compete in the market for supply of industrial gas used in forklifts. Penalties totaling $8.3 million were imposed on the companies and three managers. [CCA.44ZZRJ.100] “Bid rigging” cases • Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. The applicant succeeded in a claim that the respondent and a private equity firm had entering into a bid rigging arrangement by which the private equity firm agreed to bid for a subsidiary of the applicant that was being sold, and the respondent did not bid, even though there was ambiguity over whether the respondent would be permitted to bid given its history with the applicant. The private equity firm had been the successful buyer and it subsequently on-sold the company to the respondent: see also Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 283. An appeal was lodged but resolved with the orders being set aside by consent under the Federal Court Rules: see Bradken Ltd v Norcast S.ár.L [2013] FCAFC 123. [CCA.44ZZRJ.120] International price fixing cases – s 45A • ACCC v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42. On appeal, the respondent was found to have contravened s 45in relation to arrangements between airlines to impose fuel surcharges in relation to air freight services from Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia to Australia. • ACCC v Koyo Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1051. The respondent admitted having made arrangements or understandings with competitors to increase prices for their automotive components in Australia. Penalty of $2 million was imposed. • ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 5) [2013] FCA 294. The respondent, a supplier of land and submarine cables and accessories, admitted entering into an overarching arrangement or understanding with other suppliers of land cables relating to the allocation of projects in response to customers’ tenders. Penalty of $1.35 million was imposed. • ACCC v Thai Airways International Public Co Ltd [2012] FCA 1434. The respondent admitted that that it had arrived at and given effect to understandings in relation to fuel surcharges, customs fees and security surcharges in relation to the carriage of air cargo from Indonesia to a number of countries including Australia. Agreed penalties of $7.5 million were imposed. • ACCC v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1392. The respondent admitted that it had arrived at and given effect to understandings in relation to fuel surcharges and insurance and security surcharges in relation to the carriage of air cargo from Singapore to Australia. Agreed penalties of $11.25 million were imposed.

378

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

s 44ZZRJ

• ACCC v Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd [2012] FCA 1395. The respondent admitted that it had arrived at and given effect to understandings in relation to fuel surcharges, security charges and customs fees in relation to the carriage of air cargo from Indonesia to Australia, and seeking to make an arrangement with another airline in relation to charges for transportation of meat from Australia to the Middle East. Agreed penalties of $11.75 million were imposed. • ACCC v Emirates [2012] FCA 1108. The respondent admitted that it had arrived at and given effect to understandings in relation to a fuel surcharge, a security surcharge and a customs fee on freight carried by air from Indonesia to countries including Australia and also that it attempted to induce a cargo agent to charge a common rate for the supply of air freight services from Australia, with neither undercutting the prices offered by the other. Agreed penalties of $10 million were imposed. • ACCC v Malaysia Airline System Berhad (No 2) [2012] FCA 767. The respondent’s cargo subsidiary admitted arriving at and giving effect to understandings in relation to a fuel surcharge, a security surcharge and a customs fee, on freight carried internationally by air from Indonesia to other countries, including Australia. A penalty of $6 million was imposed. • ACCC v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd [2011] FCA 1360. The respondent admitted that it had arrived at and given effect to understandings with other airlines that were members of the Air Cargo Representative Board — Indonesia as to the minimum fuel surcharge rate in relation to freight from Indonesia to the rest of the world, including Australia and a customs processing fee to be charged on air waybills. Agreed penalty of $5.5 million imposed. • ACCC v Japan Airlines International Co Ltd [2011] FCA 365. The respondent admitted entering and giving effect to understandings with other airlines for the supply of air cargo services from Singapore to destinations throughout the world including Australia, containing a provision that they would each charge a specified amount as a fuel surcharge, in respect of those services. Penalty of $5.5 million imposed. • ACCC v Bridgestone Corp [2010] FCA 584; (2010) 186 FCR 214. The respondent and three other respondents admitted being part of a worldwide cartel to fix the price of marine hose. Penalties totaling $8.3 million imposed. • ACCC v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2010] FCA 551; (2010) 269 ALR 98. The respondent, an Indonesian state-owned enterprise, unsuccessfully sought to have proceedings by the ACCC in relation to an alleged air freight cartel dismissed on the basis that it was entitled to immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985. • ACCC v April International Marketing Services Aust Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 17. By consent, the court accepted that between December 2000 and January 2004, one of the respondents entered into arrangements or understandings with its competitors at meetings (referred to as “AAA Club” meetings) of companies involved in the manufacture and supply of uncoated woodfree folio and cut size paper, including to customers in Australia. At the AAA Club meetings, which took place at various locations in South-East Asia, arrangements or understandings were arrived at with other participants as to the average price per metric tonne at which they would supply folio and cut-size paper to their customers in Australia. Those arrangements were given effect in the respondents’ pricing for the supply of paper to customers in Australia. The conduct was acknowledged to be in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) and s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act and Competition Code. Penalties totalling $4 million were imposed. • ACCC v Martinair Holland NV [2009] FCA 340. The respondent, a Dutch air freight airline, admitted, that it entered into and gave effect to an understanding with competitors KLM and Cargolux to charge an agreed surcharge on air waybills in relation to cargo freighted on certain international cargo routes including Australian routes. The airline carries around 2% of Australian inbound airfreight. Penalty of $5 million was imposed.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

379

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.44ZZRJ.120]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRJ

[CCA.44ZZRJ.120]

• ACCC v British Airways plc [2008] FCA 1977; [2008] ATPR 42-265. The respondent, an airline that carried on business in Australia, admitted giving effect to an understanding with other major airlines to charge a fuel surcharge in relation to freight it transported. The understanding arose following a resolution to impose a fuel surcharge adopted at an IATA meeting (to which immunity applied in Australia) but which was never declared effective by IATA because it did not receive government approvals required before IATA resolutions become effective. An agreed penalty of $5 million was imposed. Other airlines have also admitted involvement in the understanding and agreed on penalties: see ACCC v Cargolux Airlines International SA [2009] FCA 342; [2009] ATPR 42-282 ($5 million penalty) (Cargolux carried less than 2% of Australian inbound airfreight); ACCC v Société Air France [2009] FCA 341; [2009] ATPR 42-283 ($3 million penalty each for Air France and KLM). Air France carried less than 1% of Australian inbound airfreight and KLM was an off-line airline carrying even less). • ACCC v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976; (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] ATPR 42-266. The respondent admitted giving effect to an understanding with other major airlines to charge a fuel surcharge in relation to freight it transported. The understanding arose following a resolution to impose a fuel surcharge adopted at an IATA meeting (to which immunity applied in Australia) but which was never declared effective by IATA because it did not receive government approvals required before IATA resolutions become effective. Qantas carried about 24% of all air cargo to and from Australia. Agreed penalty of $20 million was imposed. • ACCC v Roche Vitamins Aust Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 150; [2001] ATPR 41-809. The respondent and two other companies were all subsidiaries of major international companies that had entered price fixing and market sharing arrangements overseas in relation to the supply of animal vitamins. These arrangements were applied by the respondents in Australia. The respondents admitted making the arrangements. Penalties totaling $26 million were imposed. [CCA.44ZZRJ.140] Domestic price fixing cases – old s 45A • ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 528. The respondent admitted entering into and giving effect to an understanding with competing manufacturers of laundry detergent to share confidential, commercially sensitive, information relating to the price of their products, having the effect of controlling the price of laundry detergents. Penalty of $6 million imposed. • ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. The respondent, a travel agent, was found not to have contravened s 45 in discussions with various airlines for which the appellant was an agent, concerning the price at which the airlines advertised their fares online The High Court decided that, although the respondent was the agent of the airlines, it had sufficient autonomy in its agency relationship to be a competitor with its principals in the market for sale of international airline tickets. • ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103. The ACCC failed to establish that the respondent had entered a price-fixing agreement that contravened s 45 with independent brokers appointed, on a non-exclusive basis, in relation to the bank’s home loans. The agreement included a prohibition on brokers offering commission rebates. The agreement did not contravene s 45 because the bank and the brokers supplied different services and were therefore not in competition with each other. • ACCC v NSK Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 453. The respondent admitted that it made arrangements or arrived at understandings with competitors for the supply of ball and roller bearings and associated components in Australia to aftermarket customers containing a provision that they would provide each other with information about proposed price increases and that the arrangements or understandings had the purpose and likely effect of controlling or maintaining the price for the relevant products. Penalty of $3 million imposed.

380

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

s 44ZZRJ

• ACCC v FChem (Aust) Ltd [2008] FCA 344. The respondent admitted that it had arrived at understandings with Koppers to increase its prices of chemicals used to preserve wood, and to giving effect to those understandings in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Penalties totaling $2.5 million were imposed. • ACCC v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 5. The respondents, companies that were involved in the provision of education consultancy services in Perth to Korean students, admitted entering into an arrangement to cease discounting the fee for their services. Penalties totalling $114,500 were imposed. • ACCC v Australian Abalone Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1834. Abalone fishermen concerned about the low returns they were getting and believing that abalone processors were keeping prices down, decided to enter a marketing arrangement to only sell their catch through a marketing company that sought to maximise their return. Penalties totalling $927,500 were imposed. • ACCC v Ranu Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1777. Orthodontists who shared premises and common administrative and operational costs did so under an agreement that also provided for them to agree on the fees they would each charge. The arrangement was not uncommon in the medical and dental professions where professionals shared premises but otherwise operated separate practices. The respondents admitted breaching s 45A. A penalty of $15,000 was imposed. • ACCC v Dally M Publishing and Research Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1220; [2007] ATPR 42-176. A funeral celebrant who provided civil funeral ceremonies at funeral homes in metropolitan Melbourne attempted to fix the fee charged for those services with celebrants by proposing this at conferences for funeral celebrants that it conducted. The celebrant also sought to obtain approval to send a letter stating the proposed price to funeral homes in the area. Penalties totalling $40,000 were imposed. • ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162 The ACCC failed, on the evidence, to establish that the respondent and seven other petrol retailers in Geelong, Victoria, had entered into a series of arrangements or understandings to fix the price of petrol. • ACCC v Gullyside Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1727; [2006] ATPR 42-097. The respondent operated service stations in the Brisbane metropolitan area. It entered an arrangement with a competitor under which phone calls would be made to discuss the price for their petroleum products and accordingly the prices posted at the respondent’s service stations. Penalties totalling $470,000 were imposed. Another participant cooperated under the ACCC’s leniency policy and received no penalty. • Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078. One of the respondents in the Leahy case, which involved fixing the price of petrol in the Ballarat area (see following case), successfully appealed against the finding that it had been part of the arrangement. The appellant succeeded because the facts did not disclose that it made any commitment to charge prices notified to it by others and on many occasions did not do so. • ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1678; (2004) 141 FCR 183; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-260. The respondent and a number of other petrol retailers in the Ballarat area were found to have breached s 45A by entering a price fixing understanding which brought periods of discounted retail petrol prices to an end over a period of 18 months. Penalties totalling $23.5 million were imposed: see ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 254; (2005) 215 ALR 281; [2005] ATPR 42-051; ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 3) [2005] FCA 265; (2005) 215 ALR 301; [2005] ATPR 42-052. • ACCC v George Weston Foods Ltd [2004] FCA 1093; (2004) 210 ALR 486; [2004] ATPR 42-015. A senior executive of the respondent telephoned a competitor from a public phone booth and tried unsuccessfully to reach agreement to increase the price of flour. When the chairman of the respondent was informed the executive was dismissed but re-engaged as a consultant. The respondent did not disclose the matter to the ACCC. A penalty of $1.5 million was imposed.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

381

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.44ZZRJ.140]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRJ

[CCA.44ZZRJ.140]

• ACCC v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 693; (2004) 207 ALR 329; [2004] ATPR 42-008. The respondent voluntarily informed the ACCC of a price fixing arrangement with a competitor and cooperated with the ACCC. The competitor also cooperated. A penalty of $1 million was imposed on the competitor. • ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945. The AMA was found not to have entered into an arrangement or understanding that had the purpose or effect of providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of the price for medical services to be delivered at a hospital in Western Australia when it entered certain agreements with the developer of the hospital concerning the terms and conditions for doctors engaged at the hospital. • ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911. The ACCC failed to establish that the respondents had entered an arrangement or understanding to fix, control or maintain the price of wholesale milk in the Northern Territory. The ACCC also failed to establish that a contract which established the price for raw milk and processed milk controlled prices for wholesale milk. • ACCC v Australian Medical Association (WA Branch) Inc [2001] FCA 1471; (2001) 114 FCR 91; [2001] ATPR 41-844. The AMA and certain members admitted to making an arrangement to fix the price for services provided by doctors at a privatised hospital and to reaching arrangements with visiting practitioners to the hospital designed to prevent the visiting practitioners supplying medical services at the hospital. Pecuniary penalties of $240,000 were imposed by consent, payable by installments. • ACCC v Trevor Davis Investments Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 952; [2001] ATPR 41-828. The respondent, who operated an internet café in a Melbourne suburb, wrote to another internet café in the area proposing that they set a minimum price for public internet access at their cafés. The respondent was held to have breached the Victorian Competition Code equivalent of s 45A. • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215. The ACCC failed to prove that the respondent had attempted to breach s 45A by entering, or attempting to induce others to enter, an arrangement or understanding to eliminate or control discounting by competing supermarkets, and to ensure that in each relevant market, Safeway was not undersold on the price of bread. • ACCC v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 1787; [2000] ATPR 41-745. The respondents admitted engaging in price fixing, market sharing and tender rigging in the market for irrigation and sewerage supplies. Penalties totaling $1.75 million were imposed. • ACCC v George Weston Foods Ltd [2000] FCA 690; [2000] ATPR 41-763. The respondent admitted having attempted to induce two competing supermarkets in Tasmania to give effect to a price fixing arrangement in relation to the retail sale of biscuits. A penalty of $900,000 was imposed. • ACCC v Real Estate Institute (WA) Inc [1999] FCA 18; (1999) 161 ALR 79; [1999] ATPR 41-673. The Institute licensed two colleges to offer real estate training courses using the Institute’s copyright materials. The licence contained a provision requiring the colleges not to charge less than the price at which the Institute offered competing courses. Proceedings against the colleges and the lawyer for the REI who drew up the licences were settled by consent. • ACCC v McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-628. The respondent made an arrangement with a competitor to ensure that when asked for a quote for cartage by a particular customer the competitor would not quote a rate less than that quoted by the respondent. Penalties totalling $4 million were imposed. Penalties reduced on appeal to $2.7 million. • ACCC v Cromford Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-618. The respondents admitted attempting, on four occasions, to fix the price of polythene building film over a three-month period in 1995. Penalties totalling $12,000 were imposed on the company and the executive involved. 382

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

s 44ZZRJ

• ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 238; 145 ALR 36; [1997] ATPR 41-562. A bread manufacturer made admissions in relation to claims by the ACCC that the manufacturer had succumbed to pressure from a large supermarket chain to raise the price at which the bread manufacturer was selling bread at a location near to one of the supermarket’s stores. The manufacturer admitted breaching the Act and penalties totalling $950,000 were imposed. The supermarket subsequently successfully defended proceedings brought against it. • ACCC v Alice Car & Truck Rentals Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-582. The respondents operated car rental businesses at Alice Springs airport. They admitted making an arrangement to cease offering walk-up customers special discounts on car rentals and undertook to give refunds to affected customers. Penalties totaling $1.54 million were imposed on four corporate and four individual respondents. • ACCC v Ampol Petroleum (Vic) Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-469. Ampol admitted to agreeing with two of its franchisees that one of the franchisees would not resell petrol and LPG supplied by Ampol at less than the price of the other franchisee. Penalties totaling $2.56 million were imposed. • ACCC v NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-515. Five frozen food distributors in Tasmania pleaded guilty to price fixing conduct over three years in relation to a range of products. Penalties totaling $1.5 million were imposed on the companies and executives involved. In addition, the companies were ordered to implement compliance programs agreed with the ACCC. Penalty reduced on appeal. • ACCC v Hymix Industries Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-465; ACCC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-457. The respondents admitted agreeing with other suppliers of premixed concrete to fix prices for that product in various cities in Queensland. Penalties totaling $2.06 million were imposed, injunctions issued and a compliance program ordered. • TPC v Monier Roofing Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-464. Roof tile manufacturers admitted fixing rates paid to roof tilers and to giving preferential rates to members of the South Australian Roof Tilers’ Association. Penalties totaling $300,000 were imposed, injunctions issued and a compliance program ordered. • TPC v Prestige Motors Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-359. The Western Australian distributor of Toyota vehicles and all but one of the dealers in Perth admitted giving effect to an arrangement to fix the minimum amount of discount they would allow customers who did not have a trade-in. • TPC v Service Station Association Ltd (1992) 109 ALR 465; [1992] ATPR 41-179. The Commission failed to prove the existence of an arrangement to fix, control or maintain retail petrol prices, or even an attempt by the Association to do so, when the Association embarked on a program designed to restore profitability to service stations. • TPC v JJ & YK Russell Pty Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-132. Two service station proprietors and their principals pleaded guilty to having attended a meeting at which they agreed to increase the retail price of petrol and to having done so for a short period. Others at the meeting pleaded not guilty. Penalties totaling $9,450 were imposed. But a third proprietor who had convened the meeting but not taken part in the pricing discussion was found not to have breached the Act, even though he also increased his price to the price discussed at the meeting. • TPC v Leslievale Pty Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-687. The Commission alleged that an oil company and a number of its dealers in Queensland reached an understanding to fix prices in relation to the sale of petrol but the court was not satisfied that an understanding had in fact been arrived at. • TPC v David Jones (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 446; 64 ALR 67; [1986] ATPR 40-671. A number of Adelaide retailers who met and agreed to adopt a particular price list in relation to a particular brand of manchester which had previously been discounted, were found to have engaged in price fixing. The distributor, who also attended the meeting, was also found to be a party to the understanding to fix prices.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

383

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.44ZZRJ.140]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRJ

[CCA.44ZZRJ.140]

• TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-590. Five producers of premixed concrete met to formulate a pricing policy to overcome a severe price war which had broken out in Melbourne and which had forced the price of premixed concrete to below production cost. The respondents admitted entering an arrangement which had the effect of fixing, maintaining or controlling prices. Penalties totaling $250,000 were imposed. • TPC v Parkfield Operations Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 534; 62 ALR 267; [1985] ATPR 40-639. The Commission proved an attempt to fix prices by a petrol station proprietor who proposed to a competitor that they both raise their prices. • TPC v Cook-On Gas Products Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-560. Retailers of gas barbeques in Adelaide pleaded guilty to having agreed to fix the price of a certain brand of barbeque. The court found that they had been motivated by a desire to increase profitability without realising that their actions were in breach of the Act. Penalties totaling $8,000 were imposed. • TPC v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd (No 2) (1983) 76 FLR 455; 47 ALR 719; 5 TPR 321; [1983] ATPR 40-358. A steel supply company in Western Australia was found to have breached the Act when it attempted, unsuccessfully, to induce its competitors to raise prices. • TPC v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd (1981) 55 FLR 125; 35 ALR 105; [1981] ATPR 40-204. The court found a case to answer against several respondents in proceedings brought by the Commission alleging that in 1976 the respondents entered into an arrangement or understanding to raise the price of liquid glucose. • TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172. The Commission was unsuccessful in proceedings instituted against the manufacturers of electricity meters in Australia for breach of the price fixing provisions, notwithstanding that the manufacturers submitted their tenders to electricity supply authorities at identical prices and on identical terms, and that the manufacturers exchanged price lists. • Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318. The operators of two Sydney commercial FM radio stations incorporated a company to offer advertising on both stations at one rate. The rate was calculated by adding together the individual rates determined independently by each station. It was held that no breach had occurred: Upheld on appeal. [CCA.44ZZRJ.160] Collusive tender cases – old s 45A • ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367. The respondents breached the Act by engaging in the practice of cover pricing in tenders for state and local government construction contracts. Cover pricing involved a builder who wished to be seen to tender for a particular project but either did not wish to win the tender or did not have the time or resources to prepare a tender, seeking a price from another builder who was tendering and lodging a tender at a higher price. The respondents were found to have contravened s 45A. Penalties totalling $1.38 million imposed. See also ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1216 (penalties). • ACCC v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085. Eleven companies and 18 individuals agreed to findings that they had been involved in a bid-rigging cartel in Western Australia between 1991 and June 2003, in relation to tendering for commercial air conditioning and mechanical services projects. Penalties totalling $9.1 million were imposed. • ACCC v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1425; [2004] ATPR 42-031. The respondents entered into and gave effect to an arrangement or understanding to fix the price of demolition services in a tender to the Department of Defence, one tenderer submitting a tender at a price higher than the price tendered by another tenderer. The parties admitted breaching s 45A. Penalties totaling $535,000 were imposed.

384

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRJ

• Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 2; (2003) 127 FCR 170; 196 ALR 611; [2003] ATPR 41-957. For six years the major competitors in the market for the sale of distribution transformers in Australia executed a market sharing and price fixing arrangement to “share” tenders for the supply of distribution transformers either by the other competitors refraining from tendering for a particular contract or by submitting tenders at a price higher than that which would be submitted by the competitor whose customer was calling for the tender. Penalties totaling $5.5 million were imposed. • ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468; [1999] ATPR 41-732. The court held that, on the facts, a special fee payable by the successful tenderer to unsuccessful tenderers in relation to construction tenders was likely to have the effect of controlling the price in that the successful tenderer was likely to pay the fee out of the proceeds of the job and to take them into account in calculating its tender price. [CCA.44ZZRJ.180]

Market sharing cases – s 45

See also [CCA.45.640] • ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304. The respondent and another manufacturer of wire harnesses for motor vehicles were found to have entered and given effect to an arrangement or understanding that, when an RFQ was issued to them by a motor vehicle manufacturer for the supply of wire harnesses for a particular model of motor vehicle they would meet and agree on the allocation between them of the products to be supplied by each of them in each of the countries in which the particular model of motor vehicle was manufactured, including by exchanging and agreeing on the prices. • ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617; (2007) 244 ALR 673; [2007] ATPR 42-185. The respondent, a major supplier of corrugated fibreboard packaging products in Australia, admitted that for a period of almost five years, it had an arrangement with its major competitor to maintain their respective market shares and not deal with each other’s customers. The two companies held between them over 90% of that market. Their arrangement covered agreeing on annual price increases and agreeing on prices to be charged to particular customers. Where a customer changed from one company to the other that company would provide other customers in exchange. A penalty of $36 million was imposed on the respondent and penalties totalling $2 million were imposed on two executives. • ACCC v SIP Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 858; [1999] ATPR 41-702. Two Australian distributors of compressors manufactured by the same Italian company decided to divide up the market and also agreed on certain pricing principles in selling the compressors. One of the distributors admitted breaching the Act and this decision dealt only with that distributor. Penalties of $60,000 were imposed. • ACCC v Foamlite (Aust) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-615. The respondents entered price fixing and market sharing agreements between the mid-1980s and 1995 concerning the supply of industrial flexible poly-urethane foam in Queensland. The respondents agreed not to compete on price with customers of the others or to approach each other’s customers. Penalties totalling $1.9 million were imposed and injunctions granted. • TPC v Simsmetal Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-449. The respondents admitted giving effect to a price fixing and market sharing arrangement in relation to the purchase of ferrous scrap metal in Victoria and arrangements to exclude a competitor from purchasing derelict car bodies. Penalties totaling $562,510 were imposed. • TPC v TNT Australia Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-375. A number of large transport companies admitted agreeing not to poach parcel express customers from each other and charging uniform prices for air express satchels. Penalties totaling $11,76 million imposed by agreement.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

385

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRJ.180]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRK

44ZZRK

[CCA.44ZZRK.20]

Giving effect to a cartel provision

(1) [Cartel provision] A corporation contravenes this section if: (a) a contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision; and (b) the corporation gives effect to the cartel provision. Note: For enforcement, see Part VI. (2) [Application of para (1)(a)] Paragraph (1)(a) applies to contracts or arrangements made, or understandings arrived at, before, at or after the commencement of this section. [S 44ZZRK insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRK COMMENTARY Outline .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRK.20] Concept: give effect to ............................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRK.40]

[CCA.44ZZRK.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRK is a parallel provision to s 44ZZRJ. It prohibits corporations giving effect to a cartel provision. The prohibition applies to cartels no matter when the offending contract, arrangement or understanding was arrived at: s 44ZZRK(2). In all other respects the section is in the same terms as the prohibition in s 44ZZRJ on entering contracts, arrangements and understandings containing a cartel provision. [CCA.44ZZRK.40]

Concept: give effect to

See [CCA.4.320].

SUBDIVISION D – EXCEPTIONS 44ZZRL

Conduct notified

(1) [Sections that do not apply to cartel provisions if notice given] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply to a corporation in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, in so far as: (a) the cartel provision: (i) has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, mentioned in subsection 44ZZRD(2); or (ii) has the purpose mentioned in a paragraph of subsection 44ZZRD(3) other than paragraph (c); and (b) the corporation has given the Commission a collective bargaining notice under subsection 93AB(1A) setting out particulars of the contract, arrangement or understanding; and (c) the notice is in force under section 93AD. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

386

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRO

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRL insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRM

Cartel provision subject to grant of authorisation

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ do not apply in relation to the making of a contract that contains a cartel provision if: (a) the contract is subject to a condition that the provision will not come into force unless and until the corporation is granted an authorisation to give effect to the provision; and (b) the corporation applies for the grant of such an authorisation within 14 days after the contract is made. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRM insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRN

Contracts, arrangements or understandings between related bodies corporate

(1) [Related bodies corporate] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding if the only parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding are bodies corporate that are related to each other. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRN insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRO

Joint ventures—prosecution

(1) [Joint venture contracts containing cartel provisions] Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRG do not apply in relation to a contract containing a cartel provision if: (a) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (b) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (c) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the contract; and (d) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the contract for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (b) jointly by means of: (i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

Note 2:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

387

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRO (1A) [Section 44ZZRF: arrangement with cartel provision] Section 44ZZRF does not apply in relation to an arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision if: (a) the arrangement or understanding is not a contract; and (b) when the arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, each party to the arrangement or understanding: (i) intended the arrangement or understanding to be a contract; and (ii) reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (c) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (d) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (e) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the arrangement or understanding; and (f) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the arrangement or understanding for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (d) jointly by means of: (i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). Note 2: For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

(1B) [Section 44ZZRG: arrangement with cartel provision] Section 44ZZRG does not apply in relation to giving effect to a cartel provision contained in an arrangement or understanding if: (a) the arrangement or understanding is not a contract; and (b) when the arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, each party to the arrangement or understanding: (i) intended the arrangement or understanding to be a contract; and (ii) reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (c) when the cartel provision was given effect to, each party to the arrangement or understanding reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (d) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (e) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (f) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the arrangement or understanding; and (g) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the arrangement or understanding for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (e) jointly by means of: (i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1B) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

Note 2:

388

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRO

Notice to prosecutor (2) A person is not entitled to rely on subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) in a trial for an offence unless, within 28 days after the day on which the person is committed for trial, the person gives the prosecutor: (a) a written notice setting out: (i) the facts on which the person proposes to rely for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden borne by the person in relation to the matter in subsection (1), (1A) or (1B), as the case may be; and (ii) the names and address of any witnesses whom the person proposes to call for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden borne by the person in relation to the matter in subsection (1), (1A) or (1B), as the case may be; and (b) certified copies of any documents which the person proposes to adduce or point to for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden borne by the person in relation to the matter in subsection (1), (1A) or (1B), as the case may be. (3) [Compliance with subs (2)] If the trial of a person for an offence is being, or is to be, held in a court, the court may, by order: (a) exempt the person from compliance with subsection (2); or (b) extend the time within which the person is required to comply with subsection (2). (4) [Certified copy] For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), a certified copy of a document is a copy of the document certified to be a true copy by: (a) a Justice of the Peace; or (b) a commissioner for taking affidavits. [S 44ZZRO insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRO COMMENTARY Outline .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRO.20] Proposals for Change ............................................................................................................ [CCA.44ZZRO.40] Further reading ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRO.60]

[CCA.44ZZRO.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRO provides a defence from prosecution for a cartel offence if the cartel provision is for the purposes of a production and/or supply joint venture. The term “joint venture” is described in s 4J. Section 44ZZRO only applies to criminal proceedings. The defence in relation to civil penalty and private proceedings are dealt with in Section 44ZZRP. The defence only applies if the cartel provision is for the purposes of the joint venture and is contained in a contract (rather than an arrangement or understanding). However, if the parties enter an arrangement or understanding that they intend to be a contract and reasonably believe it to be a contract, that will be sufficient: s 44ZZRO(1B). As the facts in Gibson Motor Sport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes [2005] FCA 749 show, whether or not a joint venture exists, where there is no written agreement, can be difficult to determine. There are two other requirements, depending on whether the joint venture is incorporated or unincorporated. They are: • unincorporated – the provision must be for the purposes of a joint venture carried on jointly by the parties to the contract; or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

389

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRO.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRO

[CCA.44ZZRO.20]

• incorporated – the provision must be for a joint venture formed by the parties to the contract for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity jointly by means of joint control or joint ownership. Although the section is limited in its application to production and/or supply joint ventures, the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum at http://www.parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ ems/r4027_ems_4f2df285-4d72-4687-8e42-ec44d721a02c/upload_pdf/ 329294sem.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf to the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008 states that: 1.26 … to the extent that a research and development joint venture is formed and proceeds to produce and supply the fruits of the relevant research and development to the parties to the joint venture, it may be producing a “service” as defined under section 4 of the TP Act, and therefore qualify under the relevant joint venture exception. 1.27 This is because “services” is defined broadly to include (but is not limited to) any rights, including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property. Research and development could therefore produce or develop intangible rights. As far as incorporated joint ventures are concerned, the draftsman’s choice of the word “formed” rather than “carried on” introduces an unresolved ambiguity. The burden of establishing that a cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture and otherwise satisfies the above criteria is to be discharged by the defendant. Defendants are not allowed to rely on the joint venture defence unless notice is given to the prosecutor within 28 days of the person being committed for trial, including the evidence on which the defendant intends to rely to establish the defence: section 44ZZRO(2). In order to meet criticism that the amendments did not go far enough to exclude commonly used forms of joint venture, the Minister included the following statement in the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum http://www.parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4027_ems_4f2df2854d72-4687-8e42-ec44d721a02c/upload_pdf/329294sem.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf to the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008: Examples Joint venture exceptions 1.9 Example 1.1 demonstrates that the joint venture exceptions themselves provide scope for particular types of joint ventures to make acquisitions without breaching the criminal offences or civil penalty prohibitions in the Bill. Example 1.1 If an acquisition by a joint venture is provided for in a joint venture contract, and the acquisition is for the purposes of that joint venture, and the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services, then such acquisitions would fall within the scope of sections 44ZZRO or 44ZZRP. The exceptions cover acquisitions in the form of inputs that are for the purposes of that joint venture, as long as the other joint venture exception prerequisites are met (for example, that the acquisition is provided in a joint venture contract). Acquisitions of shares or assets exception 1.10 Example 1.2 demonstrates that section 44ZZRU (while not specifically stated to apply to joint ventures) may also apply to enable a joint venture to make particular types of acquisitions (of shares in the capital of a body corporate, or the assets of a person) without breaching the criminal offences or civil penalty prohibitions in the Bill. Unlike the joint venture exceptions, the exception provided under section 44ZZRU is not limited to joint ventures established under a contract only. Example 1.2 Section 44ZZRU provides that the criminal offences and civil penalty prohibitions introduced by the Bill do not apply to a contract, arrangement or understanding, in so far as the cartel provision provides

390

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRO

directly or indirectly for the acquisition of any shares in the capital of a body corporate, or any assets of a person. The exception is stated to apply to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, and does not exclude its application to joint ventures. However, if a joint venture sought to rely on this exception, the joint venture could expose itself to liability under the current section 50 civil prohibition in the TP Act (which contains a substantial lessening of competition test). Collective acquisition of goods or services and re-supply exception 1.11 Example 1.3 demonstrates that section 44ZZRV (while also not specifically stated to apply to joint ventures) may also apply to enable a joint venture to make acquisitions without breaching the criminal offences or civil penalty prohibitions in the Bill. Unlike the joint venture exceptions, the exception provided under section 44ZZRV is not limited to joint ventures established under a contract only, but alternative prerequisites regarding the scope of the exception apply. Example 1.3 The exception in section 44ZZRV provides that the criminal offences and civil penalty prohibitions in the Bill do not apply to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, in so far as the cartel provision has the purpose, effect or likely effect of fixing prices (broadly speaking), and either the cartel provision relates to the price of goods or services to be collectively acquired, whether directly or indirectly, to the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding, or the cartel provision is for the joint advertising of the price for the re-supply of goods or services so acquired. That is, the exception does not exclude its application to joint ventures, and could be relied upon by joint ventures engaged in marketing activities regarding goods or services collectively acquired. Making and giving effect to a cartel provision in joint venture contract exception 1.12 In certain circumstances a joint venture may be concerned that day-to-day decisions made by a management board, comprising representatives of members of the joint venture, may be found to be arrangements or understandings which contain cartel provisions that do not have the benefit of the joint venture exceptions. In those circumstances, the joint venture parties would need to consider carefully whether the activities in relation to which they are concerned are cartel provisions according to the definition under section 44ZZRD, and if so, whether the particular activity is contemplated and regulated by an underlying joint venture contract. If a board or committee is established under the joint venture contract to regulate or manage the joint venture and the activities of that board or committee are contemplated and regulated by the joint venture contract, then the exceptions would appear to apply in relation to those activities. 1.13 Example 1.4 demonstrates the interaction of the elements of the joint venture exceptions. Example 1.4 Two or more parties enter into a joint venture to own or develop a shopping centre, and have a contract containing clauses to the effect that a management committee comprising representatives of the joint venture parties will decide from time to time the rent and other charges within their shopping centre, and then later proceed to do so. If the original contract that was made has a provision providing for the making of decisions as to rent and other charges by that management committee for the purposes of the joint venture, then the process of making and giving effect to those decisions would appear to be covered by the exception. [CCA.44ZZRO.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016 the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including a number of amendments to this section designed to simplify the cartel provisions as they apply to joint ventures. The view was that the joint venture exception had been framed too narrowly and that this may be having the unintended effect of limiting legitimate commercial transactions, or increasing business compliance costs.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

391

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRO.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRP

[CCA.44ZZRO.40]

The amendments proposed in the exposure draft were to repeal s 44ZZRO(1A) and 44ZZRO(1B), extend ss 44ZZRO(1), 44ZZRO(1)(c) and 44ZZRO(1)(d) to arrangements and understandings in addition to contracts and substitute the following for s 44ZZRO(1)(a) and 44ZZRO(b): (a) the cartel provision is: (i) for the purposes of a joint venture; or (ii) reasonably necessary for undertaking a joint venture; and (b) the joint venture is for any one or more of the following: (i) production of goods; (ii) supply of goods or services; (iii) acquisition of goods or services; and However, legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016. It is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not this and other amendments to the cartel provisions are proceeded with in the form set out in the exposure draft remains an open question. [CCA.44ZZRO.60]

Further reading

Evans, Mansour, Crowther & Shewan: Competition Aspects of Joint Ventures: A Perspective from the South Pacific (2004) 10 CLI 91. 44ZZRP

Joint ventures—civil penalty proceedings

(1) [Sections 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK: contracts with cartel provisions] Sections 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract containing a cartel provision if: (a) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (b) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (c) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the contract; and (d) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the contract for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (b) jointly by means of: (i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note: For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

(1A) [Section 44ZZRJ: arrangement with cartel provision] Section 44ZZRJ does not apply in relation to an arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision if: (a) the arrangement or understanding is not a contract; and (b) when the arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, each party to the arrangement or understanding: (i) intended the arrangement or understanding to be a contract; and (ii) reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (c) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (d) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (e) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the arrangement or understanding; and (f) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the arrangement or understanding for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (d) jointly by means of:

392

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRP

(i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note:

For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

(1B) [Section 44ZZRK: arrangement with cartel provision] Section 44ZZRK does not apply in relation to giving effect to a cartel provision contained in an arrangement or understanding if: (a) the arrangement or understanding is not a contract; and (b) when the arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, each party to the arrangement or understanding: (i) intended the arrangement or understanding to be a contract; and (ii) reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (c) when the cartel provision was given effect to, each party to the arrangement or understanding reasonably believed that the arrangement or understanding was a contract; and (d) the cartel provision is for the purposes of a joint venture; and (e) the joint venture is for the production and/or supply of goods or services; and (f) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(i) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on jointly by the parties to the arrangement or understanding; and (g) in a case where subparagraph 4J(a)(ii) applies to the joint venture—the joint venture is carried on by a body corporate formed by the parties to the arrangement or understanding for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry on the activity mentioned in paragraph (e) jointly by means of: (i) their joint control; or (ii) their ownership of shares in the capital; of that body corporate. Note: For example, if a joint venture formed for the purpose of research and development provides the results of its research and development to participants in the joint venture, it may be a joint venture for the supply of services.

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRP insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRP COMMENTARY Outline ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZRP.20] Proposals for Change ............................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZRP.40]

[CCA.44ZZRP.20]

Outline

Section 44ZZRP is a mirror provision to s 44ZZRO. It contains the same substantive defence to a cartel offence in relation to pecuniary penalties as in relation to criminal offences. [CCA.44ZZRP.40]

Proposals for Change

See [CCA.44ZZRO.40]. The amendments to this section proposed in the exposure draft were repeal of s 44ZZRP(1A) and 44ZZRP(1B), extend ss 44ZZRP(1)(a)-(d) to arrangements and understandings in addition to contracts and substitute the following for s 44ZZRP(1)(a) and 44ZZRP(1)(b): (a) the cartel provision is: (i) for the purposes of a joint venture; or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

393

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRP.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRQ

[CCA.44ZZRP.40]

(ii) reasonably necessary for undertaking a joint venture; and (b) the joint venture is for any one or more of the following: (i) production of goods; (ii) supply of goods or services; (iii) acquisition of goods or services; and 44ZZRQ

Covenants affecting competition

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract containing a cartel provision, in so far as the cartel provision constitutes a covenant to which section 45B applies or, but for subsection 45B(9), would apply. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRQ insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRR

Resale price maintenance

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ, 44ZZRK: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, in so far as the cartel provision relates to: (a) conduct that contravenes section 48; or (b) conduct that would contravene section 48 but for the operation of subsection 88(8A); or (c) conduct that would contravene section 48 if this Act defined the acts constituting the practice of resale price maintenance by reference to the maximum price at which goods or services are to be sold or supplied or are to be advertised, displayed or offered for sale or supply. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRR insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRS

Exclusive dealing

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ do not apply in relation to the making of a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision, in so far as giving effect to the cartel provision would, or would but for the operation of subsection 47(10) or 88(8) or section 93, constitute a contravention of section 47. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (3) of this section).

(2) [Application of sections 44ZZRG and 44ZZRK] Sections 44ZZRG and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to the giving effect to a cartel provision by way of: (a) engaging in conduct that contravenes, or would but for the operation of subsection 47(10) or 88(8) or section 93 contravene, section 47; or

394

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

(b)

s 44ZZRS

doing an act by reason of a breach or threatened breach of a condition referred to in subsection 47(2), (4), (6) or (8), being an act done by a person at a time when: (i) an authorisation under subsection 88(8) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition; or (ii) by reason of subsection 93(7), conduct engaged in by that person on that condition is not to be taken to have the effect of substantially lessening competition within the meaning of section 47; or (iii) a notice under subsection 93(1) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (3) of this section). (3) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRS insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRS COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRS.20]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including amendments in relation to the application of the cartel provisions to vertical trading restrictions. In order to broaden the exemption for vertical trading arrangements the proposal was to replace s 44ZZRS with: (1) Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to making, or giving effect to, a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision to the extent that the cartel provision: (a) imposes, on a party to the contract, arrangement or understanding (the acquirer) acquiring goods or services from another party to the contract, arrangement or understanding, an obligation that relates to: (i) the acquisition by the acquirer of the goods or services; or (ii) the acquisition by the acquirer, from any person, of other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the goods or services; or (iii) the supply by the acquirer of the goods or services or of other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the goods or services; or (b) imposes, on a party to the contract, arrangement or understanding (the supplier) supplying goods or services to another party to the contract, arrangement or understanding, an obligation that relates to: (i) the supply by the supplier of the goods or services; or (ii) the supply by the supplier, to any person, of other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the goods or services. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section). (2) A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. (3) This section does not affect the operation of section 45 or 47. However, legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016. It is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. Whether or not this and other amendments to the cartel provisions are proceeded with in the form set out in the exposure draft remains an open question.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

395

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 1 – Cartel conduct

[CCA.44ZZRS.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZRT

44ZZRT

[CCA.44ZZRU.20]

Dual listed company arrangement

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZZRJ do not apply in relation to the making of a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision, in so far as: (a) the contract, arrangement or understanding is a dual listed company arrangement; and (b) the making of the contract, arrangement or understanding would, or would apart from subsection 88(8B), contravene section 49. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (3) of this section).

(2) [Application of sections 44ZZRG and 44ZZRK] Sections 44ZZRG and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to the giving effect to a cartel provision, in so far as: (a) the cartel provision is a provision of a dual listed company arrangement; and (b) the giving effect to the cartel provision would, or would apart from subsection 88(8B), contravene section 49. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (3) of this section).

(3) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRT insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

44ZZRU

Acquisition of shares or assets

(1) [Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, in so far as the cartel provision provides directly or indirectly for the acquisition of: (a) any shares in the capital of a body corporate; or (b) any assets of a person. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRU insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

SECTION 44ZZRU COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZRU.20]

Outline

The cartel provisions do not apply in so far as the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding provides, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition of shares on a body corporate or assets of any person (including a corporation). This exclusion is intended to prevent overlap with s 50. The term “in so far as” is used in a number of provisions, including s 45(7) which excludes from the s 45 prohibition, contracts, arrangements and understandings in so far as they provide, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition of shares or assets. The words “in so far as” in that context define the boundary between s 45 and s 50 such that, they preserve the application of s 45 to the relevant contract, arrangement or

396

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZRV

understanding if it can stand with the excluded provisions severed and still amount to a contravention: SA Brewing Holdings Ltd v Baxt (1989) 23 FCR 357; [1989] ATPR 40-967. In s 44ZZRU the exclusion is limited in two respects. Firstly, the prohibition continues to apply to balance of the contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision except to the extent that the cartel provision provides directly or indirectly for the acquisition of shares in the capital of a company. Secondly, as long as the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding can stand with the excluded provision being severed, the balance can and will contravene the cartel prohibitions: Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 235; (2013) 219 FCR 14. The status of this case may be in doubt given that the decision was set aside: see Bradken Ltd v Norcast S.ár.L [2013] FCAFC 123. 44ZZRV Collective acquisition of goods or services by the parties to a contract, arrangement or understanding (1) [Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK: contract with cartel provision] Sections 44ZZRF, 44ZZRG, 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK do not apply in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding containing a cartel provision, in so far as: (a) the cartel provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, mentioned in subsection 44ZZRD(2); and (b) either: (i) the cartel provision relates to the price for goods or services to be collectively acquired, whether directly or indirectly, by the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; or (ii) the cartel provision is for the joint advertising of the price for the re-supply of goods or services so acquired. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and subsection (2) of this section).

(2) [Evidential burden] A person who wishes to rely on subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of section 44ZZRJ or 44ZZRK bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter. [S 44ZZRV insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

DIVISION 1A – ANTI-COMPETITIVE DISCLOSURE OF PRICING AND OTHER INFORMATION [Div 1A insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

PART IV DIV 1A COMMENTARY [CCA.PTIV.DIV1A.20]

Outline

This Division is directed at prohibiting businesses prescribed as subject to its provisions making a private disclosure of pricing information to a competitor, and making a disclosure of a wide range of matters if the purpose of the disclosure is to substantially lessen competition in a market: Explanatory Memorandum para 1.13. In the second reading speech the Treasurer stated: These laws will be initially targeted at the banking sector, because the ACCC has told us there is strong evidence of banks signalling their pricing intentions to each other in a bid to undermine competition. We have been very clear all along that we would only extend these laws to other sectors of the economy after further detailed consideration. The ACCC advised me last year that it was concerned about the behaviour of “some of the banks in signalling in advance what their response will be to a change in

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

397

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Div 1A - Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing

[CCA.PTIV.DIV1A.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZS

[CCA.PTIV.DIV1A.20]

interest rates by the Reserve Bank”. … This type of anti-competitive price signalling can be just as harmful to Australian consumers as an explicit price-fixing cartel. … The ACCC provided very strong advice that banks were giving each other a “nod and a wink” that they would raise their rates together. However, because they were not actually writing it all down and signing in blood, or even agreeing verbally how they would act—they could get away with it. This kind of conduct by the big end of town should never be allowed to continue when designed to dud Australian families. The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) recommended the repeal of Div 1A and amendment of s 45 to extend it to prohibit a person engaging in a concerted practice with one or more other persons that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the repeal of this Division and the extension of s 45 and will develop exposure draft legislation to do so. An exposure draft of the legislation issued in September 2016 proposed repeal of this Division, but the legislation had not been introduced by 1 January 2017: see [CCA.44ZZW.40]. 44ZZS

Definitions

In this Division: disclose has a meaning affected by section 44ZZU. Division 1A goods or services means goods or services to which this Division applies (see section 44ZZT). evidential burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist. intermediary: see subsection 44ZZU(3). private disclosure to competitors: see section 44ZZV. [S 44ZZS insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

44ZZT

Goods and services to which this Division applies

(1) [Application of this Division] This Division applies to goods and services of the classes (however described) that are prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this section. (2) [Regulations may limit description of a class of goods or services] Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may limit the description of a class of goods or services by reference to any matters including (for example) any one or more of the following: (a) a kind of supplier of goods or services; (b) a kind of industry or business in which goods or services are supplied; (c) the circumstances in which goods or services are supplied. (3) [Regulations must prescribe process relating to making of regulations] The regulations must prescribe a process to be gone through before regulations are made, for the purpose of subsection (1), prescribing a class of goods or services. Before the Governor-General makes regulations, for the purpose of subsection (1), prescribing a class of goods or services, the Minister must be satisfied that the prescribed process has been complied with. (4) [Where subs (2) does not apply] Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the first regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1). [S 44ZZT insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

398

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZU

SECTION 44ZZT COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZT.20]

Outline

The price signaling provisions apply only to goods and services prescribed by regulation. Regulation 48 provides that the section applies to goods and services of taking deposits and advances of money by authorized deposit-taking institutions. Regulation 49 sets out a process by which the provisions may be extended to other goods or services, but no additional regulations have been made. 44ZZU

Provisions affecting whether a corporation has disclosed information to a person

Disclosure to director, employee or agent etc of another person (1) For the purpose of this Division: (a) if a corporation makes a disclosure of information to a person in the person’s capacity as a director, employee or agent of another body corporate, the disclosure is taken to have been made by the corporation to that body corporate; and (b) if a corporation makes a disclosure of information to a person in the person’s capacity as an employee or agent of another person (not being a body corporate), the disclosure is taken to have been made by the corporation to that other person. Disclosure to discloser’s own agent (2) For the purpose of this Division, the disclosure of information by a corporation to another person is to be disregarded if: (a) the disclosure is made to the person in the person’s capacity as an agent of the corporation; and (b) subsection (3) does not apply to the disclosure. Disclosure through intermediary (3) If: (a) a corporation makes a disclosure of information to a person (the intermediary); and (b) the corporation makes the disclosure to the intermediary for the purpose of the intermediary disclosing (or arranging for the disclosure of) the information to one or more other persons; and (c) the information is so disclosed to one or more of those other persons (the recipients); then, for the purpose of this Division: (d) the disclosure of the information to the recipients is taken to have been made by the corporation; and (e) the disclosure of the information to the intermediary is to be disregarded (unless the intermediary is a competitor or potential competitor of the corporation in a market). Accidental disclosure (4) For the purpose of this Division, the disclosure of information by a corporation to a person (the recipient) is to be disregarded if the disclosure to the recipient is due to: (a) an accident; or (b) the default of a person other than the corporation; or (c) some other cause beyond the control of the corporation. Note: This subsection does not apply to a disclosure of information covered by subsection (3). Section 84 not limited (5) This section does not limit section 84. [S 44ZZU insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

399

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Div 1A - Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing

[CCA.44ZZT.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZ9 44ZZV

[CCA.44ZZW.20] Meaning of private disclosure to competitors

Main definition (1) A disclosure of information by a corporation is a private disclosure to competitors, in relation to a particular market, if the disclosure is to one or more competitors or potential competitors of the corporation in that market, and is not to any other person. Note: The effect of section 44ZZU must be taken into account in working out whether the disclosure is to one or more competitors or potential competitors, and is not to any other person.

Anti-avoidance (2) For the purpose of determining whether a corporation has made a private disclosure to competitors in relation to a particular market, the fact that the disclosure is also made to a person who is not a competitor or potential competitor of the corporation in that market is to be disregarded if: (a) for a disclosure that is not made through an intermediary—the corporation made the disclosure to the person for the purpose of avoiding the application of section 44ZZW to the disclosure; or (b) for a disclosure that is made through an intermediary—either: (i) the corporation directed or requested the intermediary to disclose the information to the person for the purpose of avoiding the application of section 44ZZW to the disclosure; or (ii) the intermediary disclosed the information to the person for the purpose of avoiding the application of section 44ZZW to the disclosure. Fact that the information is otherwise available is not relevant (3) The question whether a disclosure of information by a corporation is a private disclosure to competitors is not affected by the information otherwise being or becoming available to competitors or potential competitors of the corporation in the market, or to other persons. [S 44ZZV insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

44ZZW Corporation must not make private disclosure of pricing information etc to competitors A corporation must not make a disclosure of information if: (a) the information relates to a price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, Division 1A goods or services supplied or likely to be supplied, or acquired or likely to be acquired, by the corporation in a market (whether or not the information also relates to other matters); and (b) the disclosure is a private disclosure to competitors in relation to that market; and (c) the disclosure is not in the ordinary course of business. Note: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(6A). [S 44ZZW insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

SECTION 44ZZW COMMENTARY Outline ...................................................................................................................................... [CCA.44ZZW.20] Proposals for Change .............................................................................................................. [CCA.44ZZW.40]

[CCA.44ZZW.20]

Outline

This section prohibits corporations disclosing information if the information relates to a price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services to which the Division applies, where the following conditions apply:

400

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZW

• the goods or services are supplied or likely to be supplied by the corporation, or acquired or likely to be acquired by the corporation; in a market; and • the disclosure is a private disclosure to a competitor in that market. A private disclosure is a disclosure to one or more competitors or potential competitors of the corporation in the relevant market, and is not to any other person: s 44ZZV(1). There are anti avoidance provisions that provide that, for the purpose of determining whether a corporation has made a private disclosure: s 44ZZV(2). The prohibition does not apply to: • the disclosure of information relating to goods or services supplied, acquired or likely to be supplied or acquired by a corporation to or from the person to whom the disclosure is made; • the disclosure of information to a person who the corporation did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, to be a competitor or potential competitor; • the disclosure of information to other participants or proposed participants in a joint venture for the production and/or supply of goods or services in which the corporation is a participant or proposed participant and the disclosure is made for the purposes of the joint venture or in the course of negotiations for the joint venture; or • the disclosure of information in so far as it is disclosed in connection with the acquisition of shares or assets by or from the corporation. The question whether a disclosure of information by a corporation is a private disclosure to competitors is not affected by the information otherwise being or becoming available to competitors or potential competitors of the corporation in the market, or to other persons: s 44ZZV(3) However, there are a number of other exclusions set out in s 44ZZZ. They are where the disclosure is: • to a related body corporate only • made to other contracting parties in accordance with an effective collective bargaining notice and made in the corse of negotiations • made pursuant to an Authorisation or Notification • made for the purpose of complying with the continuous disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001; or • made within 10 years of the Division taking effect and is authorised by Commonwealth, State Territory law. [CCA.44ZZW.40]

Proposals for Change

The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) recommended the repeal of Div 1A and amendment of s 45 to extend it to prohibit a person engaging in a concerted practice with one or more other persons that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the repeal of this Division and the extension of s 45 and will develop exposure draft legislation to do so. On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to those recommendations. However, legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016. It is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

401

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Div 1A - Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing

[CCA.44ZZW.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZX

[CCA.44ZZX.20]

44ZZX Corporation must not make disclosure of pricing information etc for purpose of substantially lessening competition The prohibition (1) A corporation must not make a disclosure of information if: (a) the information relates to one or more of the following (whether or not it also relates to other matters): (i) a price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, Division 1A goods or services supplied or likely to be supplied, or acquired or likely to be acquired, by the corporation; (ii) the capacity, or likely capacity, of the corporation to supply or acquire Division 1A goods or services; (iii) any aspect of the commercial strategy of the corporation that relates to Division 1A goods or services; and (b) the corporation makes the disclosure for the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a market. Note: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(6A) or notified under subsection 93(1).

Determining whether disclosure made for purpose of substantially lessening competition (2) In determining, for the purpose of this section, if a corporation has made a disclosure for the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a market, the matters to which the court may have regard include (but are not limited to): (a) whether the disclosure was a private disclosure to competitors in relation to that market; and (b) the degree of specificity of the information; and (c) whether the information relates to past, current or future activities; and (d) how readily available the information is to the public; and (e) whether the disclosure is part of a pattern of similar disclosures by the corporation. (3) [Deemed disclosure where purpose ascertainable by inference from conduct or from other relevant circumstances] Without limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have made a disclosure of information for the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a market even though, after all the evidence has been considered, the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. [S 44ZZX insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

SECTION 44ZZW COMMENTARY [CCA.44ZZX.20]

Outline

This section prohibits corporations disclosing, for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, pricing information, its commercial strategy or capacity to supply in relation to goods or services to which the Division applies, except where the disclosure is accidental, the fault of someone other than the corporation, or results from a cause beyond the corporation’s control: s 44ZZX(1), s 44ZZU(4).

402

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Div 1A - Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing

s 44ZZY

A corporation may be taken to have made a disclosure of information for the purpose of substantially lessening competition even though that purpose is only ascertainable by inference from the corporation’s conduct, from the conduct of any other person or from other relevant circumstances: s 44ZZX(3). In determining whether a disclosure has been made for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, s 44ZZX(2) provides that the court may have regard to any matter it thinks fit, including: • whether the disclosure was a private disclosure to competitors; • the degree of specificity of the information; • whether the information relates to past, current or future activities; • how readily available the information is to the public; and • whether the disclosure is part of a pattern of similar disclosures by the corporation. If a corporation makes a disclosure of information to a director, employee or agent of another body corporate, or an employee or agent of another person, the disclosure is taken to have been made by the corporation to that body corporate or person: s 44ZZU(1). That section exempts disclosures by a corporation to its own agent, as long as the disclosure is made to the agent in that capacity and the agent is not an intermediary: s 44ZZU(2) and (3). There are a number of exceptions set out in s 44ZZZ. They are where the disclosure is: • to a related body corporate only; • made to other contracting parties in accordance with an effective collective bargaining notice and made in the course of negotiations; • made pursuant to an Authorisation or Notification; • made for the purpose of complying with the continuous disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001; or • made within 10 years of the Division taking effect and is authorised by Commonwealth, State Territory law. 44ZZY

Exceptions that apply to sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX

Disclosure authorised by law: general exception for 10 years (1) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if: (a) the disclosure is authorised by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (b) the disclosure occurs before the end of 10 years after the day on which the Competition and Consumer Amendment Act (No. 1) 2011 receives the Royal Assent. Note: This subsection has effect in addition to: (a)

subsection (6) (which covers compliance with continuous disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001); and (b) subsection 51(1) (which covers things authorised by certain laws).

Disclosure to related bodies corporate (2) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if the disclosure is to one or more bodies corporate that are related to the corporation, and is not to any other person. Note: The effect of section 44ZZU must be taken into account in working out whether the disclosure is to one or more bodies corporate that are related to the corporation, and is not to any other person.

Disclosure for collective bargaining (3) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if: (a) the corporation has given the Commission a collective bargaining notice under subsection 93AB(1A) or (1) setting out particulars of a contract or proposed contract; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

403

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.44ZZX.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZY (b) the notice is in force; and (c) the disclosure is to one or more of the other contracting parties, and is not to any other person; and (d) the disclosure of the information: (i) if the notice relates to a contract—is required by the contract; or (ii) if the notice relates to a proposed contract—is made in the course of negotiations for the proposed contract or, if the proposed contract is entered into, is required by the contract. Note:

The effect of section 44ZZU must be taken into account in working out whether the disclosure is to one or more of the other contracting parties, and is not to any other person.

Disclosure in course of authorised conduct (4) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if: (a) an authorisation under section 88 (other than subsection 88(6A)) applies to or in relation to the corporation; and (b) the authorisation is in force; and (c) the disclosure of the information is made in the course of engaging in conduct that is covered by the authorisation. Note: A disclosure that would otherwise contravene section 44ZZW or 44ZZX can also be directly authorised under subsection 88(6A).

Disclosure covered by notification under section 93 (5) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if: (a) the corporation has given the Commission a notice under subsection 93(1) describing conduct; and (b) the disclosure is conduct described in the notice; and (c) the notice is in force under section 93. Compliance with continuous disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (6) Sections 44ZZW and 44ZZX do not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if the disclosure is made for the purpose of complying with Chapter 6CA of the Corporations Act 2001. [S 44ZZY insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

44ZZZ

Additional exceptions that only apply to section 44ZZW

Disclosure of information to acquirer or supplier of goods or services (1) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation to a person (the recipient) if: (a) the information relates to goods or services supplied or likely to be supplied, by the corporation to the recipient; or (b) the information relates to goods or services acquired or likely to be acquired, by the corporation from the recipient. Disclosure to unknown competitor (2) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation to a person if: (a) the person is a competitor or potential competitor of the corporation in the market referred to in that section; and (b) the corporation did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the person was such a competitor or potential competitor.

404

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 44ZZZ

Disclosure to participants in joint venture (3) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation if: (a) either: (i) the corporation is a participant in a joint venture for the production and/or supply of goods or services; or (ii) the corporation proposes to enter into a joint venture with one or more other persons (the proposed participants); and (b) the disclosure is to one or more participants or proposed participants in the joint venture, and is not to any other person; and (c) the disclosure is made for the purposes of the joint venture or in the course of negotiations for the joint venture. Note: The effect of section 44ZZU must be taken into account in working out whether the disclosure is to one or more participants in the joint venture, and is not to any other person.

Disclosure relating to provision of loans etc to same person (3A) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more corporations (the relevant corporations) if: (a) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant corporations; and (b) 2 or more of the relevant corporations are, in relation to the same person (the borrower), doing either or both of the following: (i) providing such services to the borrower; (ii) considering whether to provide such services to the borrower; (c) the disclosure is for the purpose of, or related to, providing services, or considering whether to provide services, to the borrower as mentioned in paragraph (b). Disclosure between credit provider and provider of credit service (3B) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation to another person if: (a) either: (i) the corporation is a credit provider, and the other person provides a credit service, within the meaning of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009; or (ii) the corporation provides a credit service, and the other person is a credit provider, within the meaning of that Act; and (b) the disclosure is made in the course of the relationship between the corporation and the other person in their capacities as credit provider and provider of a credit service. Disclosure relating to acquisition of shares or assets (4) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information by a corporation in so far as the information is disclosed in connection with a contract, arrangement or understanding that provides, or a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding that would provide, for the acquisition of any shares in the capital of a body corporate, or any assets of a person, by or from the corporation. Note: For the meaning of acquisition of shares, and acquisition of assets, see subsection 4(4). Disclosure if borrower insolvent etc (5) Section 44ZZW does not apply to the disclosure of information between 2 or more corporations (the relevant corporations) if: (a) at least one of the relevant corporations:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

405

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Div 1A - Anti-competitive disclosure of pricing

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 44ZZZ (i) has provided a loan or credit to another corporation (the borrower); and (ii) has been notified of a borrower insolvency situation (see subsection (6)); and (b) the information relates to services, being loans or credit, supplied, or likely to be supplied, by one or more of the relevant corporations; and (c) the disclosure is for the purpose of one or more of the relevant corporations considering whether to take measures to return the borrower to solvency, or to avoid or reduce the risk of the borrower becoming insolvent. (6) [When a relevant corporation is notified of a borrower insolvency situation] For the purpose of subsection (5), a relevant corporation is notified of a borrower insolvency situation if: (a) the corporation is notified that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that one or more of the following may be or become insolvent: (i) the borrower; (ii) a person who has given a guarantee or indemnity in respect of loans or credit provided to the borrower by one or more of the relevant corporations; and (b) the notification is given by the borrower, or by a person referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii). [S 44ZZZ insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

44ZZZA

Burden of proof

If: (a) proceedings are brought against a person in relation to section 44ZZW or 44ZZX; and (b) the person seeks to rely on subsection 44ZZU(2) or (4), or on a subsection of section 44ZZY or 44ZZZ; the person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters set out in that subsection on which the person seeks to rely. [S 44ZZZA insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

44ZZZB Mere receipt of information does not constitute being knowingly involved in contravention For the purpose of paragraph 76(1)(e), a person is not taken to be directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention of section 44ZZW or 44ZZX merely because the person is a recipient of information disclosed in contravention of that section. [S 44ZZZB insrt Act 185 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Jun 2012]

DIVISION 2 – OTHER PROVISIONS [Div 2 heading insrt Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 19]

45 Contracts, arrangements or understandings that restrict dealings or affect competition (1) [Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977] If a provision of a contract made before the commencement of the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977: (a) is an exclusionary provision; or (b) has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; that provision is unenforceable in so far as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations on a corporation. (2) [Where corporation may not make contract or arrangement] A corporation shall not: (a) make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, if: (i) the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding contains an exclusionary provision; or

406

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

(ii)

a provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or (b) give effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, whether the contract or arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, before or after the commencement of this section, if that provision: (i) is an exclusionary provision; or (ii) has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition. (3) [Definition: competition] For the purposes of this section, competition, in relation to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, means competition in any market in which a corporation that is a party to the contract, arrangement or understanding or would be a party to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or any body corporate related to such a corporation, supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the provision, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. [Subs (3) am Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 20]

(4) [Multiple provisions that together lessen competition] For the purposes of the application of this section in relation to a particular corporation, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding shall be deemed to have or to be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition if that provision and any one or more of the following provisions, namely: (a) the other provisions of that contract, arrangement or understanding or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding; and (b) the provisions of any other contract, arrangement or understanding or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding to which the corporation or a body corporate related to the corporation is or would be a party; together have or are likely to have that effect. (5) [Where this section does not apply] This section does not apply to or in relation to: (a) a provision of a contract where the provision constitutes a covenant to which section 45B applies or, but for subsection 45B(9), would apply; (b) a provision of a proposed contract where the provision would constitute a covenant to which section 45B would apply or, but for subsection 45B(9), would apply; or (c) a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding in so far as the provision relates to: (i) conduct that contravenes section 48; or (ii) conduct that would contravene section 48 but for the operation of subsection 88(8A); or (iii) conduct that would contravene section 48 if this Act defined the acts constituting the practice of resale price maintenance by reference to the maximum price at which goods or services are to be sold or supplied or are to be advertised, displayed or offered for sale or supply. [Subs (5) am Act 88 of 1995, s 9]

(6) [Where this section is not contravened] The making of a contract, arrangement or understanding does not constitute a contravention of this section by reason that the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a provision the giving effect to which would, or would but for the operation of subsection 47(10) or 88(8) or section 93, constitute a

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

407

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45 contravention of section 47 and this section does not apply to or in relation to the giving effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding by way of: (a) engaging in conduct that contravenes, or would but for the operation of subsection 47(10) or 88(8) or section 93 contravene, section 47; or (b) doing an act by reason of a breach or threatened breach of a condition referred to in subsection 47(2), (4), (6) or (8), being an act done by a person at a time when: (i) an authorization under subsection 88(8) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition; or (ii) by reason of subsection 93(7) conduct engaged in by that person on that condition is not to be taken to have the effect of substantially lessening competition within the meaning of section 47; or (iii) a notice under subsection 93(1) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition. [Subs (6) am Act 88 of 1995, s 9; Act 17 of 1986, s 15]

(6A) [Dual listed company arrangements] The following conduct: (a) the making of a dual listed company arrangement; (b) the giving effect to a provision of a dual listed company arrangement; does not contravene this section if the conduct would, or would apart from subsection 88(8B), contravene section 49. [Subs (6A) insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 4]

(7) [Where this section does not apply] This section does not apply to or in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding in so far as the contract, arrangement or understanding provides, or to or in relation to a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding in so far as the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding would provide, directly or indirectly for the acquisition of any shares in the capital of a body corporate or any assets of a person. [Subs (7) am Act 222 of 1992, s 3]

(8) [Section does not apply to related bodies corporate] This section does not apply to or in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding, or a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, the only parties to which are or would be bodies corporate that are related to each other. (8A) [Where subs (2) does not apply] Subsection (2) does not apply to a corporation engaging in conduct described in that subsection if: (a) the corporation has given the Commission a collective bargaining notice under subsection 93AB(1) describing the conduct; and (b) the notice is in force under section 93AD. [Subs (8A) insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 3 item 2]

(9) [Where subs (2) not contravened] The making by a corporation of a contract that contains a provision in relation to which subsection 88(1) applies is not a contravention of subsection (2) of this section if: (a) the contract is subject to a condition that the provision will not come into force unless and until the corporation is granted an authorization to give effect to the provision; and (b) the corporation applies for the grant of such an authorization within 14 days after the contract is made; but nothing in this subsection prevents the giving effect by a corporation to such a provision from constituting a contravention of subsection (2). [S 45 am Act 59 of 2009; Act 131 of 2006; Act 88 of 1995; Act 222 of 1992; Act 17 of 1986; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 25

408

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

Cross-reference: Trade Practices (Primary Products Exemptions) Regulations exempt certain bodies from the operation of s 45 (which renders contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting competition unenforceable). These exemptions extend to specified conduct engaged in by bodies within the following industries: mushroom (reg 6), oyster (reg 7), citrus marketing (reg 8), dried fruit (reg 9), banana (reg 10), apple and pear (reg 11), cherry (reg 12), raw cotton (reg 13), vegetable products (reg 14) and macadamia nut (reg 15).]

SECTION 45 COMMENTARY Summary .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.40] Definition: corporation ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.60] Concepts: contract arrangement or understanding ......................................................................... [CCA.45.80] Establishing a contract arrangement or understanding – circumstantial evidence ....................... [CCA.45.100] Concept: arrangements and understandings – parallel conduct ................................................... [CCA.45.120] Overarching arrangements and understandings ........................................................................... [CCA.45.140] Concept: give effect to ................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.160] Concept: exclusionary provision .................................................................................................... [CCA.45.180] Concept: provision ......................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.200] Concept: has or is likely to have ................................................................................................... [CCA.45.220] Concept: purpose ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.240] Concept: effect ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.260] Concept: substantially lessening competition ................................................................................ [CCA.45.280] Concept: substantial ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.300] Concept: lessening ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.45.320] Concept: competition ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.340] Competition and competitive strength ........................................................................................... [CCA.45.360] Competition and principals and agents ......................................................................................... [CCA.45.380] Price or cost information exchanges ............................................................................................. [CCA.45.400] Arrangements with a weak competitor .......................................................................................... [CCA.45.420] Exclusions ...................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.440] Onus of proof ................................................................................................................................. [CCA.45.460] Enforceability .................................................................................................................................. [CCA.45.480] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.45.500] ACCC leniency policy .................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.520] Cases: boycotts ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.45.540] Cases: co-operation arrangements and joint ventures .................................................................. [CCA.45.560] Cases: discounting ......................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.580] Cases: fixing prices ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.45.600] Cases: loyalty agreements ............................................................................................................ [CCA.45.620] Cases: market sharing ................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.640] Cases: non-compete arrangements ............................................................................................... [CCA.45.660] Cases: profitability schemes .......................................................................................................... [CCA.45.680] Cases: requirements contracts ...................................................................................................... [CCA.45.700] Cases: refusing supply .................................................................................................................. [CCA.45.720] Cases: tenders ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.740] Cases: other ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45.760] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.45.780]

[CCA.45.20]

Summary

This is the primary section on anticompetitive dealings between competitors or potential competitors. It prohibits contracts, arrangements or understandings that contain anticompetitive provisions – provisions that have the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. It is a contravention to enter any such contract, arrangement or understanding and a separate contravention to give effect to them when entered into.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

409

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.20]

Section 45 also prohibits corporations including in any contract arrangement or understanding a provision that is an “exclusionary provision” – in effect a collective boycott – regardless of its likely effect on competition: see s 4D. Although the section is directed at corporations, the uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Competition Code (see Pt XIA and Sch 1) to individuals. Schedule 1 contains a direct equivalent to s 46 that applies to all “persons”. The section is capable of applying to price fixing, but that conduct is now dealt with specifically under the cartel provisions of ss 44ZZRA – 44ZZRU. The elements of a contravention of s 45, other than in relation to exclusionary provisions, are: • the existence of a contract, arrangement or understanding needs to be established; • a provision of that contract, arrangement or understanding must have either the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition; and • the competitive effect of a provision is to be determined with respect to its likely impact in markets in Australia. Each of these elements has been extensively explored in the courts. While the term “contract” is well understood and presents no difficulty, what is and what is not an arrangement or understanding and whether there is, in reality, a difference between the two terms, has proven to be a complicated matter. This has led to proposals to amend the section to adopt “concerted practices” as the trigger for its operation, as is the case in other jurisdictions. The second element is purpose or likely effect. While the effect of a provision is a relatively straight forward concept, to be established by factual analysis, “likely effect” raises question of degree. Likely has many shades of meaning, but in this context means more probable than not. The purpose of a provision (as opposed to that of the parties) is more problematic, because it is a quite artificial concept. In this context it means the practical effect sought to be achieved by the provision. The third element involves identifying the relevant markets and assessing the likely effect of the provision on competition in those markets. There will be no contravention of s 45 unless the purpose or effect is in relation to a market in Australia: see, for example, ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157. The term “market” is an economic concept, described in detail at [CCA.4E.60]. In essence it is an area of economic activity encompassing the range of goods or services that, over time, are substitutable for one another. Competition, also an economic concept, described at [CCA.4.140], is a state of affairs in a market. A competitive market is one in which a range of firms compete on price, quality and service. Section 45 may also be infringed by attempts to make offending contracts or arrive at offending arrangements or understandings: s 76(1)(b). Whether or not s 45 is currently capable of dealing with price signalling or other similar concerted practices is unclear. Since 2011, the Act has included special provisions dealing with price signalling in relation to the banking sector, but the Harper Committee has recommended that the relevant Division be repealed and a provision relating to concerted practices inserted: see ss 44ZZS – 44ZZZA. Not all arrangements between firms will be anti-competitive. Qualitative and quantitative assessments are required to determine whether or not that is the purpose or effect. As the court pointed out in Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128 (at FCR 420-421): every commercial contract lessens competition to some degree. Each party is taken out of the market to the extent of its commitment. The parties, being bound to each other, are unable to buy from, or sell to, others the goods or services the subject of the contract. To that extent, they are inhibited in their ability to compete with others for purchases or sales. But those restrictions are fundamental to contract law; law which the Act was designed to supplement, not to supplant.

410

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.45.40]

s 45

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including a significant re-writing of s 45 to: • extend the section to engaging in a concerted practice with one or more other persons that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition; and remove the per se prohibition in s 45 on exclusionary provisions because it is no longer necessary given the cartel provisions. The exposure draft proposed to repeal s 45(1)-(3) and replace it with: (1) A corporation must not: (a) make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, if a provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or (b) give effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, if that provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or (c) engage with one or more persons in a concerted practice that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition (2) Paragraph (1)(b) applies in relation to contracts or arrangements made, or understandings arrived at, before or after the commencement of this section. (3) For the purposes of this section, competition means: (a) in relation to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding—competition in any market in which: (i) a corporation that is a party to the contract, arrangement or understanding, or would be a party to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding; or (ii) any body corporate related to such a corporation supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the provision, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services; or (b) in relation to a concerted practice—competition in any market in which: (i) a corporation that is a party to the practice; or (ii) any body corporate related to such a corporation; supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the practice, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. The exposure draft proposed to repeal s 45(5) and replace it with: (5) This section does not apply to or in relation to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or to or in relation to a concerted practice, in so far as the provision or practice relates to: (a) conduct that contravenes section 48; or (b) conduct that would contravene section 48 if subsection 48(2) did not apply; or (c) conduct that would contravene section 48 if it were not authorised under section 88; or (d) conduct that would contravene section 48 if this Act defined the acts constituting the practice of resale price maintenance by reference to the maximum price at which goods or services are to be sold or supplied or are to be advertised, displayed or offered for sale or supply. A new s 45(5A) is proposed to be inserted to clarify the relationship between horizontal and vertical arrangements, as follows:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

411

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.40]

(5A) The making of a contract, arrangement or understanding does not constitute a contravention of this section because the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a provision the giving effect to which would, or would apart from subsection 47(10) or section 88 or 93, constitute a contravention of section 47. Section 45(7) and 45(8) are proposed to be replaced with: (7) This section does not apply to or in relation to: (a) a contract, arrangement or understanding to the extent that the contract, arrangement or understanding directly or indirectly provides for; or (b) a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding to the extent that the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding would directly or indirectly provide for; or (c) a concerted practice to the extent that the practice directly or indirectly involves; the acquisition of any shares in the capital of a body corporate or any assets of a person. (8) This section does not apply to or in relation to: (a) a contract, arrangement or understanding, or (b) a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding; or (c) a concerted practice; Finally, the consequential changes are proposed to be made to simplify s 45(6) by omitting all the opening words and substituting: This section does not apply to or in relation to the giving effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, or to or in relation to engaging in a concerted practice, by way of Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.45.60]

Definition: corporation

See the definitions of “corporation”, “financial corporation”, “foreign corporations” and “trading corporation” in s 4. In addition, the section can apply to Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and their instrumentalities to the extent that they carry on business: see ss 2A and 2B. The distinction between corporations and individuals for the purposes of this and other provisions of Pt IV is, however, academic. The uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Competition Code (see Pt XIA and Sch 1) to individuals. Schedule 1 contains a direct equivalent to s 45 which applies to all “persons”. [CCA.45.80]

Concepts: contract arrangement or understanding

The term “contract” is not defined in the Act. It has its normal common law meaning. The terms “arrangement” and “understanding” describe something less than a binding contract. The following are the elements of an arrangement or understanding as summarised by Finn J in ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 678: • there must be a “meeting of the minds” of the parties under which one or both of them committed to a particular course of action: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v ACCC [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] ATPR 42-177 at [15] and [175]; ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749 at [75]; Top Performance Motors Pty Ltd v Ira Berk (Qld) Pty Ltd (1975) 24 FLR 286; 5 ALR 465; [1975] ATPR 40-004 at 291; • a mere expectation, or a hope that something might be done or happen or that a party will act in a particular way, is not of itself sufficient to establish an arrangement or understanding: Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; [2005] ATPR 42-078

412

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 45

at [45]; ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1777; (2006) 157 FCR 162; [2006] ATPR (Digest) 46-271 at [104] – [112]; • the necessary consensus or meeting of minds need not involve, though it commonly will embody, a reciprocity of obligation: ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749 at [75]. There has been a tendency to regard the terms “arrangement” and “understanding” as interchangeable: TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 (Franki J); ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749 at [75] (Sackville J) although in ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162 (Gray J) and ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J), the view expressed was that an understanding involved a “less precise” dealing than an arrangement and in ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945 (Carr J) it was suggested that an understanding may be “a less formal, looser concept”. Arrangement In TPC v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) (1979) 40 FLR 83; 26 ALR 609; [1979] ATPR 40-126 at 88 (FLR), the court adopted the following statement by Willmer LJ in Re British Basic Slag Ltd Agreements [1963] 1 WLR 727; [1963] 2 All ER 807 at 746 (WLR): Although it may not be easy to put it into words, everyone knows what is meant by arrangement between two or more parties. If the arrangement is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings, as in the case where it is made for good consideration, it may no doubt properly be described as an agreement. But the statute clearly contemplates that there may be arrangements which are not enforceable by legal proceedings, but which create only moral obligations or obligations binding in honour … For, when each of two or more parties intentionally arouse in the others an expectation that he will act in a certain way, it seems to me that he incurs at least a moral obligation to do so. An arrangement as so defined is therefore something “whereby the parties to it accept mutual rights and obligations”. The word “arrangement” is apt to describe something less than a binding contract or agreement, something in the nature of an understanding between two or more persons – a plan arranged between them which may not be enforceable at law and from which their parties may withdraw at any time: Newton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1958) 98 CLR 1; 32 ALJR 187; 11 ATD 442; [1958] ALR 833; [1958] AC 450 at 7 (CLR), was adopted by Smithers J in Top Performance Motors Pty Ltd v Ira Berk (Qld) Pty Ltd (1975) 24 FLR 286; 5 ALR 465; [1975] ATPR 40-004 at 290 (FLR). In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lutovi Investments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 434; 53 ALJR 152; 9 ATR 351; 22 ALR 519; 78 ATC 4708 at 444 (CLR) Gibbs and Mason JJ added the following, applied in ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519: It is, however, necessary that an arrangement should be consensual, and that there should be some adoption of it. But in our view it is not essential that the parties are committed to it or are bound to support it. An arrangement may be informal as well as unenforceable and the parties may be free to withdraw from it or to act inconsistently with it, notwithstanding their adoption of it. There have been suggestions that an arrangement can be tacit, but the use of the verb “make” in conjunction with both “contract” and “arrangement” in s 45(2)(a) suggests that there needs to be express communication, even if the acceptance by one party of what the other has communicated is implicit in some act, rather than expressed in words: ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162 (Gray J); ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157 (Perram J); ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J). Understanding The concept of an understanding is broad and flexible. It may arise merely where the minds of the parties are at one that a proposed transaction proceeds on the basis of the maintenance of a particular state of

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

413

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45.80]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.80]

affairs or the adoption of a particular course of conduct: L Grollo & Co Pty Ltd v Nu-Statt Decorating Pty Ltd (1978) 34 FLR 81; [1978] ATPR 40-086 (Smithers J). In ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1678; (2004) 141 FCR 183; [2004] ATPR (Digest) 46-260 at [54] (FCA), 200 (FCR), Merkel J said: An understanding will usually, but may not necessarily, involve some reciprocity of obligation … At least there must be a meeting of minds of those said to be parties to the understanding and a consensus as to what is to be done; not merely a hope as to what might be done or might happen. In ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, Perram J summarised the authorities as follows: • an understanding can be tacit and may arise without communication so long as there is a meeting of the minds; • whatever else is involved, at least one party must assume an obligation to another or give an assurance or undertaking that it will act in a certain way; • ordinarily, the concept of a meeting of the minds or a consensus will involve some element of reciprocity between the parties to the understanding but it is possible, at least in theory, to establish an understanding without mutuality being present; • an understanding need not be overt. In most cases, there will be overt or express action of some kind or another because in practical terms it is quite difficult, but not impossible, to reach a consensus without some form of communication; • there can be no understanding just because one party hopes or expects (in a non-normative sense) that another party will act in a particular way; • there will be no understanding where one party decides unilaterally to act in a particular way in response to a manoeuvre by a competitor. A deliberate decision to follow, for instance, the pricing of a competitor does not give rise, by itself, to an understanding to which s 45 applies. The proposition that, while an understanding need not be overt, there can be no understanding just because a party expects another party will act in a particular way compare Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; (1993) ATPR 41-255; [1993] FCA 380 and News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; [1996] FCA 870 with R v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387; [1911] HCA 73. See also ACCC v Australian Egg Corp Ltd [2016] FCA 69; ATPR 42–519. See also TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172; TPC v Service Station Association Ltd [1993] FCA 405; (1993) 44 FCR 206; ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452; ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162. Mutual obligation In ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468; [1999] ATPR 41-732 at 408 [141] (FCR), Lindgren J (quoted with approval by a full court in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883, at [76] (ATPR)) said: The cases require that at least one party “assume an obligation” or give an “assurance” or “undertaking” that it will act in a certain way. A mere expectation that as a matter of fact a party will act in a certain way is not enough, even if it has been engendered by that party. This followed a long line of cases in which the issue of whether or not mutual obligation is a necessary ingredient of an arrangement or understanding has been considered, but not finally decided. They include: • TPC v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) (1979) 40 FLR 83; 26 ALR 609; [1979] ATPR 40-126 at 88 (FLR). Fisher J stated that the essential elements of a meeting of minds were that each of the parties communicate with each other, that each raise an expectation in the mind of the other, and that each accept an obligation qua the other. But in the course of dismissing an appeal

414

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

from that decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court (in Morphett Arms Hotel Pty Ltd v TPC (1980) 30 ALR 88; [1980] ATPR 40-157) expressly reserved on whether or not mutual obligation was a necessary ingredient. • TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172. Lockhart J expressed the view that it would be difficult to envisage circumstances in which an understanding would not involve some reciprocity of commitment. • ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749. Sackville J stated that there was no necessity for mutual commitment in order to establish an arrangement or understanding. • ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367. Logan J noted the views expressed in Amcor by Sackville but stated it was unnecessary to decide whether there needed to be mutual obligations. However, His Honour went on to express the view that the terms “arrangement” and “understanding” did not seem to require, as opposed to admit of, mutual understandings. In TPC v Service Station Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 206; 116 ALR 643; [1993] ATPR 41-260 at 206 (FCR), the Full Court declined to finally clarify the position, stating instead: It is difficult to envisage circumstances where there would be an understanding within s 45 … involving a commitment by one party … without some reciprocal obligation by the other party. [CCA.45.100]

Establishing a contract arrangement or understanding – circumstantial evidence

Arrangements and understandings require a meeting of minds, or consensus, but this may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172 Lockhart J noted that circumstantial evidence may consist of: • evidence of parallel conduct; • evidence of joint action by the parties in relation to relevant matters; • evidence of collusion between the parties; • evidence of similar pricing structures; or • evidence of opportunities (such as industry meetings) for the parties to reach an understanding. However, for there to be a meeting of the minds or at least consensus on what is to be done, more than a mere hope as to what might be done or what might happen must be established. If a party is motivated to act in a particular way for fear of repercussions if it does not do so, that does not mean that an arrangement or understanding exists: ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 116; [2001] ATPR 41-804. If both parties commit other acts, tending to the same end, then there may be such a concurrence of time, character, direction and result as naturally to lead to the inference that these separate acts were the outcome of pre-concert, or some mutual contemporaneous engagement, or that they were themselves the manifestations of mutual consent to carry out a common purpose: News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521, quoting Attorney-General (Cth) v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73; (1911) 14 CLR 387 at 400 (CLR). That may include evidence of what members of the group said to each other or even to third parties. Whether that evidence is ultimately accepted is a different question, as is the question of whether the respondents are proven to be parties to such an agreement, arrangement or understanding: ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355 (Perram J) applying Ahern v The Queen [1988] HCA 39; (1988) 165 CLR 87 in a cartel case. In ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, Perram J made the following observations concerning establishing an anti-competitive arrangement or understanding by circumstantial evidence:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

415

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.100] • It will be rare, particularly in price fixing cases, for the parties openly to have committed themselves to each other in an easily detected fashion. Exceptions will, however, include those cases where one member of a price fixing cartel or bid rigging enterprise betrays the other members by giving direct testimony of the understanding. There will also be cases where there are written agreements. • In cases where direct evidence is not available, proof of a collusive understanding must be circumstantial. There is nothing inherently weak about cases based on circumstantial evidence. In truth, the strength of any particular circumstantial case will be a function of the number of elements of which it consists and the corresponding unlikelihood of those elements happening for reasons other than as a result of the posited collusive behaviour. • As with any other case of circumstantial evidence, it is forlorn to seek to work out the significance of the individual elements. The circumstantial case’s nature and its strength emerge organically from a consideration of it as a whole. Thus, the onus of proof is to be applied only at the end: Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 at [41]. This does not mean that the court is prevented in the ordinary way from finding particular circumstances proved or not proved. Rather, the question of whether the inference, which it is said should be drawn, is to be asked holistically at the end of the process rather than asking whether the inference should be drawn from any individual circumstances. • The range of circumstances which may, in a particular case, form part of such a circumstantial case are without limit. In the competition area there are, however, some recurrent themes. As circumstances, none of these themes prove anything in general: some meetings between competitors are collusive, some are not; sometimes parallel pricing arises from conspiracy, sometimes it does not; so too, not every market anomaly signals the presence of a cartel – sometimes they just happen. • To produce a list of potential circumstantial matters may run the risk, therefore, of giving rise to a “check list” mentality in which, rather than asking whether a circumstantial case has been proved, one sees how many items on the list are present. Such reasoning is erroneous. Lists of matters which have been found in past cases sometimes to indicate the presence of collusive behaviour can never be more than just aids to understanding given sets of facts. At the end of the day, the question will always remain: has the circumstantial case been proved?

Admissability under the Evidence Act 1995 is a subject outside the scope of this work but, reference should be made to ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162 and ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355; (2012) 207 FCR 448. [CCA.45.120]

Concept: arrangements and understandings – parallel conduct

Parallel conduct may provide circumstantial evidence from which an arrangement or understanding can be inferred but this depends on the facts of each case. Parallel conduct is not, of itself, sufficient proof of an arrangement or understanding. The conduct may be shown to be the result of independent decisions or other economic factors: see TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172. On the other hand, not all conduct which might appear to be parallel will necessarily fall outside s 45. In Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165, the court considered whether members of an association, acting independently in deciding not to admit the applicant, had breached s 45. The court held that the conduct, even if independent, gave effect to a prior restrictive agreement on admission to the association. The oil industry provides an example of parallel conduct. Petrol retailing involves highly visible price boards outside service stations and customers quite capable of driving on to the next station if the price at one station is not what they expect. A company’s retail prices and the fluctuations are as readily apparent to competitors as they are to customers. Parallel conduct in such a market is as likely to follow from

416

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

observation and independent decision as from an arrangement or understanding: ACCC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1997] ATPR 41-568; ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162. [CCA.45.140]

Overarching arrangements and understandings

There is nothing conceptually wrong in having a general arrangement or understanding followed by a specific arrangement or understanding in a particular case. Ultimately, whether it is appropriate to infer from a series of specific agreements an overarching arrangement or understanding is a question of evidence and relevant matters include, but are not limited to, similarities between the specific arrangements and the circumstances in which the parties entered into the specific arrangements: ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304 (Besanko J). See also ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617; (2007) 244 ALR 673; [2007] ATPR 42-185 (Heerey J) and ACCC v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] FCA 704; (2010) 270 ALR 504 (Bennett J). [CCA.45.160]

Concept: give effect to

See [CCA.4.320]. [CCA.45.180]

Concept: exclusionary provision

In basic terms, an exclusionary provision is a provision of a contract arrangement or understanding between two or more competitors which gives rise to a boycott of some other person or class of persons. The term is explained in s 4D. It does not matter what the effect on competition of an exclusionary provision is. Exclusionary provisions give rise to per se breaches of the Act: News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521. However, s 76C provides that, if the person accused of entering or giving effect to an exclusionary provision establishes that the provision was for the purpose of a joint venture and that it is not likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market for goods or services, there is a defence available. [CCA.45.200]

Concept: provision

Section 45 focuses on “provisions” in any contract, arrangement or understanding to determine whether or not that provision is an exclusionary provision or one which is likely to adversely affect competition. The focus is on the provision in question, rather than on the whole of the contract, arrangement or understanding containing the provision: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [144], [245]. The term is explained at [CCA.4.440]. In addition to proving the existence of a contract, arrangement or understanding it is necessary to establish that a provision of that contract, arrangement or understanding has an anti-competitive purpose or effect, is an exclusionary provision, or establishes a cartel. A provision must provide for something to occur, or not to occur. Further, the kind of provision contemplated is a provision capable of having a “purpose” or an “effect”. The determination of whether a provision of the required kind exists is not dependent upon form, or upon express description. The requisite provision can be in the form of a recommendation. What is important is its substance. There must be sufficient substance to whatever is the result of the formation of an understanding for it to contain a provision of the required kind: ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794; (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] ATPR 42-162. [CCA.45.220]

Concept: has or is likely to have

The words “has or is likely to have” serve to permit the court to look objectively, not only at what has been established on the facts, but also to infer, from those facts, what was likely to be the consequences of the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

417

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.220]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.220]

arrangement, looking at the position at or about the time the arrangement was made, without regard to the subjective state of mind of the parties: ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911 (O’Loughlin J). In TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 at 50 (FCR), Franki J considered the term “has or is likely to have” and said: The word “has” requires the question to be tested against the established facts whereas the words “likely to have”, while referring to the period at or about the time when the arrangement was made or the understanding entered into, allows any reasonable inference to be drawn. Turning to the meaning of the term “likely” in Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 at 339 (FLR), Bowen CJ said: The word “likely” is one which has various shades of meaning. It may mean “probable” in the sense of “more probable than not” – “more than a 50 per cent chance”. It may mean “material risk” as seen by a reasonable man “such as might happen”. It may mean “some possibility” – more than a remote or bare chance. Or, it may mean that the conduct engaged in is inherently of such a character that it would ordinarily cause the effect specified. In the same case, Deane J said (at FLR 346): The word “likely” can, in some contexts, mean “probably, in the sense in which that word is commonly used by lawyers and laymen, that is to say, more likely than not or more than a 50 per cent chance.” … It can also, in an appropriate context, refer to a real or not remote chance or possibility regardless of whether it is less or more than 50 per cent. When used with the latter meaning in a phrase which is descriptive of conduct, the word is equivalent to “prone”, “with a propensity” or “liable”. When so used, it is sometimes equated with the concept of foreseeability in the law of negligence. In ss 45, 46 and 47, the term “likely” means that there is a real chance or possibility, rather than “more likely than not”: Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879, (Heerey J); Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. See also Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947 (where the court was prepared to assume this to be the test “for the purpose of argument”). How is a court to determine whether an effect on competition was likely when that depends on assuming the continuation of a course of conduct? The question the court has to address is whether, at the date of the impugned conduct, it was likely, having regard to existing circumstances, that the conduct would effect a substantial lessening of competition in the market: TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 at 50 (FCR). This means that a court must put aside hindsight knowledge, other than to note that it illustrates one potential outcome. It is not legitimate to decide cases on the basis of future conduct, even if that future conduct is no more than a continuation of existing policy. Once one takes away the effect of any future conduct, it is necessary to decide on the remaining facts, whether the conduct in question was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the market: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947.In ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165 Greenwood J put the relevant questions as follows: First, what would the future field of actual and potential rivalry with its substitution possibilities look like with the provision in place (the factual hypothesis), and what would it look like without the provision in place (the counterfactual hypothesis)? Second, to what extent is the future field of rivalry diminished or lessened or the competitive process compromised or impacted upon by the provision? Third, is the measure of that effect substantial, actually or potentially, in the sense of being “meaningful” or “relevant” to the competitive process?

418

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.45.240]

s 45

Concept: purpose

“Purpose” means nothing more than the practical effect sought to be achieved – “the end in view”. Section 45 refers to the purpose of a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding rather than the purpose of the parties to it. As Gummow J noted in News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943, the section “speaks not of human or corporate actors but of the provision itself having the purpose”. As a full court pointed out in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947 at [251], a corporation has no mind and can therefore have no purpose. It follows that the purpose of a corporation is a legal conclusion expressed as an attributed state of mind: see also Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763; [1962] 3 All ER 142; [1962] 3 WLR 694 at 804 (AC). The same applies to the purpose of a provision. It is the subjective purpose of those involved in the contract, arrangement or understanding that is relevant: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. As Greenwood J explained in ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165: When s 45 talks about a provision of the contract or arrangement having a purpose, it contemplates a proscribed purpose … subjectively held by someone or perhaps a number of people within the corporation, and the operative connection between those individuals and the corporation, so as to attribute the views of those persons on the topic of the provision(s) to the corporation. Section 4F deems a provision to have a particular purpose if the provision was included in the contract, arrangement or understanding for purposes that included that purpose. This invites consideration of the subjective purpose of those who inserted the provision: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. Purpose is not to be confused with the motive, which is the reason for seeking an end rather than the effect sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943; ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR). The focus of any inquiry must be on the provision in question, rather than on the whole of the contract, arrangement or understanding containing the provision: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [144], [245]. It follows that, if a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding was entered for a purpose that comes within s 45, then the fact that there may be a legitimate commercial purpose for the entire contract, arrangement or understanding, will be irrelevant: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [158]. Furthermore, s 4F provides that the purpose need not be the only purpose. All that is required is that it be a “substantial” purpose. However, the term “substantial” is itself, ambiguous: see [CCA.45.300]. The purpose for which conduct is engaged in is to be ascertained by having regard to the direct and indirect evidence of the actual intentions and purposes of the relevant party. While the best evidence of purpose might be the statements made by that person in the witness box, the court will treat with caution evidence that is ex post facto and self-serving. Such statements must be tested closely and received with the greatest caution: Pascoe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 11 ATD 108; 30 ALJR 402 at 403 (ALJR); ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR). In the absence of evidence from the relevant decision-makers, the finding of purpose is an inference to be drawn from all of the circumstances on the balance of probabilities: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; [2003] ATPR 41-947; Attorney-General (Cth) v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73; (1911) 14 CLR 387 at 402 (Isaacs J); Transfield Pty Ltd v Arlo

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

419

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.240]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.240]

International Ltd [1980] HCA 15; (1980) 144 CLR 83 at 108 (Wilson J), applied, for instance, inParmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119 (Collier J). See also Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165 (Lockhart J). However, a word of caution has been expressed about the danger that an examination of the objective purpose of a provision can give undue significance to the substantive effect that parties sought to achieve through its inclusion. The distinction drawn in the Act between “purpose” and “effect” demonstrates, it has been said, the impermissibility of such an approach: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943 (Gummow J). On the other hand, if were not for the fact that “for 17 years” the Federal Court had accepted that the test is a subjective test, Gleeson CJ (at [38]) seems to have been inclined to an objective test. commented at [63]: Kirby J, in dissent, also supported an objective test (at [130]). See also: ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367 at [63], in which Logan J stated that it is not permissible to conflate purpose and effect or to reverse engineer purpose from effect. It seems that it is sufficient if one of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding has the required anti-competitive purpose: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160; SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116. A different view has, however, been expressed in earlier cases: see: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 52,060 (ATPR); ACCC v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 1586; [2003] ATPR 41-911; Carlton & United Breweries (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing (NSW) Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 351; [1987] ATPR 40-820 and the s 45D case Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1988] ATPR 41-657 at 41,298 (ATPR). It does not matter that the purpose is impossible to achieve. If a provision has the requisite purpose the ability of the parties to achieve the purpose is not relevant: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947 at [249]. Purpose is to be determined at the time the contract arrangement or understanding is made: Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607; [1998] ATPR 41-657. EXAMPLE • News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943, Gleeson CJ gave the following example at [20]: Suppose two firms conduct, in competition with each other, restaurant businesses, and each restaurant can accommodate 50 customers. Suppose they agree to close down their existing businesses, and, in partnership, open a new restaurant that can accommodate 60 customers. The effect will be to reduce their combined capacity from 100 to 60. Agreeing on the size of the new restaurant would be a necessary aspect of defining the scope of their new business venture. On the bare facts stated, it could not be predicated that the purpose of limiting the size of the new restaurant to one that would cater for 60 customers related to reducing the facilities to be made available to any particular persons or classes of persons, although it would clearly have the effect of reducing the accommodation for diners generally. [CCA.45.260]

Concept: effect

Both the cumulative effect of provisions and their individual effect must be considered: s 45(4). It is the likely direct effect of the arrangement that is relevant to a determination of whether or not a breach of s 45 has occurred. If the likely direct effect is to cause a substantial lessening of competition, it will not assist the party seeking to uphold the arrangement to prove that, on an overall assessment of the market situation, the effect of the arrangement on competition is insignificant, because in its absence other market

420

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

factors would come into operation to lessen competition to a similar extent: Re Concrete Carters Assn (Vic) (1977) 31 FLR 193 at 206 (FLR); sub nom Re Application by G & M Stephens Cartage Contractors Pty Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 387; [1977] ATPR 40-042. EXAMPLE • Ah Toy J Pty Ltd v Thiess Toyota Pty Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 271; [1980] ATPR 40-155, it was argued that the provision in a motor vehicle dealership agreement providing for cancellation by either party on 60 days’ notice had the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. Forster CJ, rejecting the argument, stated the provision was “simply a mutual power between two contracting parties to put an end to the contract”. [CCA.45.280]

Concept: substantially lessening competition

The benchmark for the application of s 45 (other than exclusionary provisions), s 47 (other than third-line forcing) and s 50 is whether the conduct is likely to substantially lessen competition, or, in the case of s 45 and s 47, has that as its purpose. Of course, in the context of s 45 the relevant conduct is including a provision in a contract, arrangement or understanding and/or giving effect to that provision. The phrase “substantially lessening competition” is a seemingly simple phrase, but it imports complex economic principles involving much more than a literal interpretation of each of its terms. In essence the phrase means that conduct will only contravene the Act if, in any relevant market, it has a meaningfully adverse impact on the competitive process in that market (rather than on specific competitors), taking more than a short-term view and having regard to barriers to entry. As the High Court said in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC (2003) 216 CLR 53; 203 ALR 217; [2003] HCA 75 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) the question is whether the effect of an arrangement is meaningful or relevant to the competitive process. The context in which a meaningfully adverse impact on the competitive process is to be assessed is a market. That term, described at [CCA.4E.20] and [CCA.46.400], refers to an area of actual and potential interaction between producers and consumers (or other producers) where, given sufficient incentive, substitution will occur. As the Federal Court has pointed out, markets are not artificial economic constructs – they are recognisable by reference to function, product and geography. As the High Court has remarked, too narrow a description of the relevant market will create the appearance of a higher degree of anticompetitive effect than in fact exists, whereas too broad a description will create the appearance of less than there is. See [CCA.46.400]. Conduct will not have a meaningfully adverse impact on the competitive process in a market unless, in a meaningful and sustainable way, it adversely affects rivalry in the market in terms of price, service, quality or output in a significant proportion of the market, taking into account potential new entry over time. In other words, if it appreciably and sustainably increases the market power of a firm or, in the context of s 45, the parties to the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding. In making that assessment it must be borne in mind, as the High Court has pointed out, that competition is deliberate and ruthless, with firms jockeying for sales and the more effective firms taking away sales from the less effective: see [CCA.46.60]. The phrase “substantially lessening competition” is evaluative. In assessing whether the conduct has or is likely to result in producing that result a “counterfactual” test is applied. That requires the court to consider the state of competition in the market both with and without the conduct: Re Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd (No 3) [2013] ACompT 3 citing Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 178; (1982) 64 FLR 238. Barriers to entry are an important consideration because the entry of new firms into the market, or expansion of current participants into new and competing product or services, can provide an important source of competitive constraint. If there is an appreciable likelihood of sufficient entry within a reasonable period the conduct is unlikely to substantially lessen competition. What is a “barrier to entry”? The term does not appear to have a settled meaning in economics, but the Tribunal has taken it to mean barriers that may be either structural, based on exogenously determined market characteristics, or endogenous, being the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

421

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.280]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.280]

result of the incumbent’s strategic behaviour to deter entry: Re Chime Communications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 234 FLR 210; [2009] ACompT 2. See also [CCA.50.140]. Turning to the relevant authorities, in Universal Music Pty Ltd v ACCC (2003) 131 FCR 529; [2003] ATPR 41-947; [2003] FCAFC 193 a Full Court said: Competition is a process and the effect upon competition is not to be equated with the effect upon competitors, although the latter may be relevant to the former. Competition is a means to the end of protecting the interests of consumers rather than competitors in the market … The Court has to make a qualitative judgment about the impact of the impugned conduct on the competitive process. In Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752 at [114] (FCA), at 40,732, French J said: [T]he phrase sets a standard for judicial intervention in respect of the classes of anticompetitive conduct to which it applies. It requires, before that intervention can be invoked, that there be a purpose, effect or likely effect of the impugned conduct on competition which is substantial in the sense of meaningful or relevant to the competitive process. In ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 478 (FCR), the court said: In asking whether provisions of the agreements have or would be likely to have the effect … of substantially lessening “competition” … one looks not so much at the position of particular competitors as to the state or condition constituting the market or markets in question, actually or potentially … It is also to be borne in mind that, whilst actual competition must exist and be assessed in the context of a market, a market can exist if there be a potential for close competition even though none in fact exists or dealings in it are temporarily dormant or suspended. In Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd (1982) 64 FLR 238; 2 TPR 246; 44 ALR 173; [1982] ATPR 40-315 at 259-260 (FLR), Smithers J said: To my mind one must look at the relevant significant portion of the market, ask oneself how and to what extent there would have been competition therein but for the conduct, assess what is left and determine whether what has been lost in relation to what would have been, is seen to be a substantial lessening of competition. … [I]t is the degree to which competition has been lessened which is critical, not the proportion of that lessening to the whole of the competition which exists in the total market. Thus a lessening in a significant section of the market, if a substantial lessening of otherwise active competition may, according to circumstances, be a substantial lessening of competition in a market. Provisions in contracts, arrangements or understandings may be aggregated to determine whether or not there is any anti-competitive effect: s 45(4). How is an intention to eliminate a competitor to be viewed? Whether or not a purpose of lessening competition vis-a-vis a particular market participant amounts also to a purpose of substantially lessening competition in the market depends on the facts. The participant’s market share is one consideration. It is a question of degree. For instance, elimination of a minor market participant might have no more than a trivial effect on competition in the market, whereas a reduction of competition with a major participant might dramatically lessen competition: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. [CCA.45.300] Concept: substantial The term “substantial” is imprecise and ambiguous. Its meaning can range from “considerable” or “big” to “not merely nominal” depending on the context. Sometimes it is used in a relative sense. The meaning of the term “substantial” in each context in which it appears in the Act has not been conclusively determined. In s 45 the relevant question is whether the effect of the arrangement is substantial in the sense of being meaningful or relevant to the competitive process. It is not sufficient for liability for the relevant effect to be quantitatively more than insignificant or not insubstantial: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

422

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

The court has to make a qualitative judgment about the impact of the relevant conduct on the competitive process to determine whether or not its effect is likely to be substantial. For example, a short-term effect readily corrected by market processes is unlikely to be substantial. In order to meet the relevant test, the lessening of competition must be of such seriousness as to adversely affect competition in the marketplace, particularly with consumers in mind. As the High Court has noted, it must be “meaningful or relevant to the competitive process”: Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752 at [114]; Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. See also Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809; Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128; ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069; Gallagher v Pioneer Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd (1993) 46 IR 304; 113 ALR 159; 35 AILR 74; [1993] ATPR 41-216. [CCA.45.320]

Concept: lessening

Whether or not competition in any market is lessened by the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding is a question of fact and a matter of degree. A qualitative as well as a quantitative assessment is required. Some arrangements may increase competition by enabling the participants to better compete, others will restrict, prevent or hinder competition. For example, an electricity standard agreed between electricity utilities may aid competition and improve safety whereas an agreement between them not to sell to each other’s customers would lessen competition. As the court pointed out in Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128 at 420-421 (FCR): … every commercial contract lessens competition to some degree. Each party is taken out of the market to the extent of its commitment. The parties, being bound to each other, are unable to buy from, or sell to, others the goods or services the subject of the contract. To that extent, they are inhibited in their ability to compete with others for purchases or sales. But those restrictions are fundamental to contract law; law which the Trade Practices Act was designed to supplement, not to supplant. The term “lessen” includes “preventing” or “hindering”: s 4G. [CCA.45.340]

Concept: competition

The term “competition” is an economic term the meaning referring to a state of affairs in a market. A competitive market is one in which a range of firms compete on price, quality and service. The basic characteristic of effective competition in the economic sense is that no one seller, and no group of sellers acting in concert, has the power to choose its level of profits by giving less and charging more. Where there is workable competition, rival sellers, whether existing competitors or new potential entrants into the field, would keep this power in check by offering or threatening to offer effective inducements: National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws (USA 1955). The meaning of the term is described in greater detail at [CCA.4.140]. As a practical matter, the views and practices of those in an industry can often be most instructive, not only on the question of achieving a realistic definition of the market, but also on the question of assessing the quality of particular competitive conduct in relation to the level of competition and the impact of its cessation: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; 216 CLR 53; 203 ALR 217; 78 ALJR 274; Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 10; (2003) 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609. For the purposes of s 45 the term “competition” means competition in any market in which a corporation which is a party to the particular contract arrangement or understanding (or any related corporation)

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

423

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.340]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.340]

supplies, acquires, would be likely to supply or acquire, or would, but for a provision in the contract, arrangement or understanding supply or acquire goods or services: s 45(3). Section 4 confirms that import competition must also be considered. [CCA.45.360]

Competition and competitive strength

Enhancing the competitive position of a major participant in the market is a different concept to increasing competition. Competition may or may not be adversely affected by a major participant increasing its competitive position. A dominant company which increases its competitive strength by weakening or eliminating its rivals increases that company’s competitive position but instead of increasing competition in the industry concerned it has the effect of decreasing competition: Re Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd (1977) 32 FLR 65; [1977] ATPR 40-043 at 77 (FLR). Nevertheless, increasing one’s competitive strength in any market is not illegal. It is only when one does so through contracts, arrangements or understandings with competitors or exclusive dealing conduct that the Act may be invoked. The Act may, of course, also be invoked if a strong competitor seeks to maintain its strong position by misusing it in the sense suggested by s 46. [CCA.45.380]

Competition and principals and agents

Where the contractual and fiduciary relationship between principal and agent obliges the agent to act only in the interests of the principal, the agent would lack the autonomy to compete and would therefore not be in competition with the principal. However, where the agent has sufficient autonomy under the agency agreement to act in the agent’s own interests, the mere existence of the agency relationship does not preclude the agent from being in competition with the principal: ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd [2016] HCA 49. [CCA.45.400]

Price or cost information exchanges

Exchanges of pricing or costing information between competitors have received relatively little attention in Australia since the first rush of trade association clearance applications in the mid-1970s. In an Information Guideline issued by the Trade Practices Commission in 1976 (1976) TPRS 403.68, directed primarily but not exclusively at pricing data collected by trade associations, the Commission acknowledged that market information agreements can serve to make markets more competitive, but can also run the risk of contravention of s 45 (and now the cartel provisions). The guideline set out a number of principles against which the Commission stated that it would assess information exchanges between competitors. They included: • Information should be collected independently and with anonymity of the participants and records being preserved. The information should be “of such a nature as to be generalized, naming no particular producer or consumer”, and “particular members, producers or consumers cannot be identified from the figures obtained”. • Information collected should be publicly available. • Information should be based on past historical fact. • There should be no question of the information being used as a vehicle for recommending or policing pricing or other policies. The Commission also observed that, the frequency with which information is provides, and how closely up-to-date the information is, are matters of relevance to assessing the likely competitive effects of the arrangements. It rejected all clearance applications for the collection and dissemination of pricing information and recommended price lists. Exchanges of pricing information have featured in a number of reported cases, each turning on whether or not there was an arrangement or understanding to fix prices, rather than whether the exchanging of prices was itself a contravention of the Act. In the first, TPC v Email Ltd [ [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383;

424

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 45

[1980] ATPR 40-172, the two Australian suppliers of electrical metering exchanged price lists but that was not thought, of itself, to amount to a contravention of s 45 in its then form because, on the facts, there was no arrangement or understanding to fix prices. In Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161; (2005) 159 FCR 452, the court concluded that, although the appellant had received pricing information no contravention of s 45 had occurred because there was not sufficient evidence of to establish an arrangement or understanding to do so. On the other hand, in ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212; [2011] ATPR 42-367, a case involving builders providing pricing information ahead of tenders to local government authorities, the court found that there was sufficient evidence of an arrangement or understanding for the conduct to constitute a breach of s 45. In ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, (Perram J) carefully reviewed email exchanges between various airlines, following the publication of fuel surcharges by Lufthansa, to determine whether they amounted to an arrangement or understanding in relation to the charges other airlines would impose. His Honour concluded that, in relation to all but one circumstance, there was no understanding to fix prices involving Air New Zealand, nor did the relevant exchanges substantially lessen competition. Specific cartel provisions (ss 44ZZRA – 44ZZZA) have replaced s 45A, but the requirement to find a relevant contract, arrangement or understanding remains, except in attempt cases. However, a controversial provision, section 44ZZW, inserted in 2011, prohibits private disclosure of pricing information to competitors, without the need to establish any arrangement or understanding between them. Presently that prohibition only applies to authorized deposit-taking institutions. The European Commission has issued Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements (2011/C 11/01 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011XC0114(04):EN:NOT) stating, in relation to exchanges of pricing information: Information exchange is a common feature of many competitive markets and may generate various types of efficiency gains. It may solve problems of information asymmetries, thereby making markets more efficient. … Sharing of information may also help companies to save costs by reducing their inventories, enabling quicker delivery of perishable products to consumers, or dealing with unstable demand etc. Furthermore, information exchanges may directly benefit consumers by reducing their search costs and improving choice. However, the exchange of market information may also lead to restrictions of competition in particular in situations where it is liable to enable undertakings to be aware of market strategies of their competitors. The competitive outcome of information exchange depends on the characteristics of the market in which it takes place (such as concentration, transparency, stability, symmetry, complexity etc.) as well as on the type of information that is exchanged, which may modify the relevant market environment towards one liable to coordination. Moreover, communication of information among competitors may constitute an agreement, a concerted practice, or a decision by an association of undertakings with the object of fixing, in particular, prices or quantities. Those types of information exchanges will normally be considered and fined as cartels. Information exchange may also facilitate the implementation of a cartel by enabling companies to monitor whether the participants comply with the agreed terms. Those types of exchanges of information will be assessed as part of the cartel. In relation to whether a contravention can arise from the mere exchange of prices, in ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] FCA 1157, Perram J said: I do not accept the proposition that, in general, exchanges of future pricing intentions are likely to lessen competition substantially. If that were true every exchange of future pricing information would infringe s 45 and this would put such an arrangement on the same footing as price fixes under s 45A. Rather, something needs to be shown aligning the exchange of future pricing intentions with a likely drop in competition. This will require more than mere assertion.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

425

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45.400]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.420]

[CCA.45.420] Arrangements with a weak competitor Section 45 will not be contravened unless the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a relevant market. As has been noted above in [CCA.45.300], whether the likely effect on competition is substantial is a matter of degree: the term “substantial” being somewhat imprecise. However, it is clear that, where the likely effect on competition is insignificant the section will not be contravened. It does not follow, however, that an arrangement with a competitor who is providing weak competition may not come within the section. Where the arrangement forecloses potential competition – “nips potential competition in the bud” – the Act will be contravened: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965; Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883 at [129] (ATPR); TPC v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-076 at 52,145. [CCA.45.440] Exclusions There is a range of circumstances in which s 45 does not apply. Section 45 does not apply where immunity has been granted for the contract, arrangement or understanding through the authorisation process: see s 88(1). Section 45 cannot be used to preclude the court from vindicating rights even if the vindication of those rights may result in lessening of competition: Warman International Ltd v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 478; 6 IPR 578; 67 ALR 253; [1986] ATPR 40-714. Exclusive dealing Section 45(6) is intended to prevent overlap between ss 45 and 47 by subjecting exclusive dealing conduct to the regime created by s 47 rather than s 45: South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [1999] FCA 1710; (1999) 169 ALR 120; [1999] ATPR 41-728 at 135 (ALR). In order to determine how s 45(6) operates it is necessary to begin by identifying the prohibition contained in s 45(2) that is said to be engaged in. If it is the making of a contract, arrangement or understanding, attention must be directed to the first part of the introductory words in s 45(6), which refer to the making of a contract, arrangement or understanding. If it is the giving effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, the focus must be on the second part of those introductory words: “this section does not apply to or in relation to the giving effect to a provision.” If giving effect to the agreed provision would constitute a contravention of s 47, or would do so but for the operation of s 47(10), then s 45(6) will have effect. It is unhelpful in any such analysis to draw distinctions between “horizontal” and “vertical” conduct: Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414. The term “provision” in s 45(6) does not mean “clause”. It is not used in any technical sense. In Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414, the High Court said: The word “provision” is used here and elsewhere in Pt IV in a comprehensive rather than any technical sense reflecting its usage in contract law. It invites attention to the content of what has been, or is to be, agreed, arranged or understood, rather than any particular form of expression of that content adopted, or to be adopted, by the parties. This is emphasised by the statement in s 4(1) that “in relation to an understanding” provision means “any matter forming part of the understanding”. In relation to the term “by reason that”, in South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [1999] FCA 1710; (1999) 169 ALR 120; [1999] ATPR 41-728 at [92] (approved of in ACCC v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1075; (2001) 112 FCR 37; [2001] ATPR 41-835 although on appeal the High Court took a different approach) Hely J said: The expression “by reason that” has a meaning equivalent to “if and insofar as”. If the expression is read in that way, there is harmony between the two parts of the section, and the legislative intention of subjecting exclusive dealing to s 47 regulation, rather than regulation under s 45, is effectuated.

426

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 45

The making of the contract would not constitute a contravention of s 45 by reason that the contract contained the provision restricting a party’s freedom to supply services to others. However, the making of a contract would contravene s 45 if it contained a provision to restrict a party’s freedom to acquire goods from others, the giving effect to which would not have contravened s 47. In respect of the latter provision, the criterion for engaging the qualification in s 45(6) to the prohibition imposed by s 45(2) would not be met: Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59; (2003) 216 CLR 1; 77 ALJR 1893; 201 ALR 414. Collective bargaining The Act provides that collective bargaining may be exempted from the operation of s 45 if a Notification has been lodged with the ACCC in relation to it and that Notification has not been revoked: see ss 93AB – 93AD at [CCA.93AB.20]: see s 45(8A). Mergers Section 45(7) only exempts a contract arrangement or understanding from the operation of s 45 “insofar as” it provides for the acquisition of shares in the capital, or assets, of a body corporate. They preserve the application of s 45 to the relevant contract, arrangement or understanding if it can stand with the excluded provisions severed and still amount to a contravention: SA Brewing Holdings Ltd v Baxt (1989) (1989) 23 FCR 357; [1989] ATPR 40-967. Resale price maintenance Section 45(5)(c) does not exclude contracts, arrangements or understandings which include a provision covered by s 48. It merely excludes the provision to which s 48 applies: TPC v David Jones (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 446; 64 ALR 67; [1986] ATPR 40-671; ACCC v SIP Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 824; [2002] ATPR 41-877. [CCA.45.460] Onus of proof The applicant bears the onus of proving that the challenged contract, arrangement or understanding has or is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition: John S Hayes & Assocs Pty Ltd v Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-318; Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752. [CCA.45.480] Enforceability Where a contract is made in contravention of s 45 (or any other provision of the Act), the contract is unenforceable, but it depends on whether the relevant statutory provision is mandatory or directory: SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417; TPC v Milreis Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 144; 14 ALR 623; [1977] ATPR 40-028 at 158 (FLR); Australian Broadcasting Corp v Redmore Pty Ltd [1989] HCA 15; (1989) 166 CLR 454; 63 ALJR 306; 84 ALR 199. [CCA.45.500] Penalties The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties. The pecuniary penalties, in the case of a corporation, are up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty is $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76. In addition damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 80 and 82 and remedial orders under s 87. [CCA.45.520] ACCC leniency policy See [CCA.76.840]. [CCA.45.540] Cases: boycotts • South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824. The appellant succeeded in establishing that

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

427

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45.540]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.540] agreements the respondent had entered into with the ARL to reduce the number of clubs in the national competition (consequently excluding the appellant from the competition) was in breach of s 45. • Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165. The owners of certain cattle sales yards, who refused access to an auctioneer, did not breach s 45 because their sole purpose was to ensure that their asset was not shared with others, and their conduct was unlikely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market. • McCarthy v Australian Rough Riders Assn Inc [1988] ATPR 40-836. A rodeo rider succeeded in obtaining an interlocutory injunction against an association of which he was a member. The injunction prevented the association from giving effect to a rule that precluded members from participating in rodeos not affiliated with the association.

[CCA.45.560] Cases: co-operation arrangements and joint ventures • ACCC v PRK Corp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 715; [2009] ATPR 42-295. Two large corporations that provided automotive terminal services at the ports of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne agreed to provide access to each other’s terminals and form a joint venture for the shared conduct of those facilities. For about 14 months the parties took steps to give effect to their plans including jointly lodging a successful tender to lease land on behalf of the proposed joint venture for the purpose of operating an automotive terminal in Sydney. They admitted, for the purpose of the proceedings, that the conduct they engaged in had the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in automotive terminal services markets in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Agreed penalties of $3.8 million imposed. • ACCC v White Top Taxis Ltd [2009] FCA 88; (2009) 253 ALR 449; [2009] ATPR 42-273. The respondent, whose business was providing taxi network services in the Shepparton area, established a roster system that set out shifts for the 21 taxis on its network. Each taxi operator agreed to operate his taxi during the allotted shifts and, with exceptions, not to operate at other times. The purpose of the roster was to ensure the availability of taxis in the Shepparton area during times of low demand and to distribute the burden of working at those times evenly. The purpose of the roster was also to restrict the number of taxis available during times when there would be average and not high demand, in an attempt to share the work available at those times evenly between operators. The arrangement was found to constitute an exclusionary provision in breach of s 45. Penalties totalling $77,000 imposed. • Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255. The applicant failed to prove a breach of s 45 by an association which set up its own stationery wholesaler and encouraged newsagents to buy through that wholesaler. The applicant failed because it was unable to prove that the arrangement had the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. [CCA.45.580] Cases: discounting • ACCC v Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 530; (2003) 198 ALR 417; [2003] ATPR 41-941; ACCC v Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 128; [2004] ATPR 41-988. The respondent admitted agreeing with other liquor retailers in a small community not to advertise certain liquor products at discount prices. The respondent gave s 87B undertakings which included donating an amount to a community group for alcohol abuse education. • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [2003] ATPR 41-935. The ACCC succeeded in proving that the respondent had attempted to enter an arrangement or understanding with a bread manufacturer to eliminate or control discounting of bread at a competing market. Penalties totalling $8.9 million imposed: ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 21; [2006] ATPR 42-101.

428

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45

• TPC v Prestige Motors Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-359. The WA distributor of Toyota vehicles and all but one of the dealers in Perth, admitted giving effect to an arrangement to fix the maximum amount of discount they would allow customers who did not have a trade-in. [CCA.45.600]

Cases: fixing prices

See [CCA.44ZZRJ.120]; [CCA.44ZZRJ.140] and [CCA.44ZZRJ.160]. [CCA.45.620]

Cases: loyalty agreements

News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193; 21 ACSR 635; 35 IPR 446; [1996] ATPR 41-521. The respondent, faced with the prospect of a rival rugby league competition, sent commitment and loyalty agreements to each of its member clubs which they signed. The court held these agreements to be exclusionary and therefore in breach of s 45. [CCA.45.640] Cases: market sharing • ACCC v Vanderfield Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1535. Two truck dealers admitted that their employees had entered into an arrangement not to compete for sales to customers in each others primary area. Penalties totalling $1.09 million imposed by consent, but the court declined to grant injunctions requested by the ACCC. • ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617; (2007) 244 ALR 673; [2007] ATPR 42-185. The respondent, a major supplier of corrugated fibreboard packaging products in Australia, admitted that, for a period of almost five years, it had an arrangement with its major competitor to maintain their respective market shares and not deal with each other’s customers. The two companies held, between them, over 90% of that market. Their arrangement covered agreeing on annual price increases and agreeing on prices to be charged to particular customers. Where a customer changed from one company to the other that company would provide other customers in exchange. Penalty of $36 million imposed on the respondent and penalties totalling $2 million imposed on two executives. • ACCC v FFE Building Services Ltd [2003] FCA 1542; [2003] ATPR 41-969. Four suppliers of fire alarm equipment and a number of their executives admitted breaching s 45 when they made arrangements about who would tender the best price for a number of major building tenders. Penalties totalling $3.5 million imposed. [CCA.45.660] Cases: non-compete arrangements • ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 528. The respondent admitted entering into and giving effect to an understanding with competing manufacturers of laundry detergent and specified retailers to limit the supply to of ultra-concentrated laundry detergents until an agreed date and standard-concentrated laundry detergents from that date. Penalty of $12 million imposed. Subsequently, Woolworths, one of the retailers, admitted being knowingly concerned in the contravention. Penalty of $9 million imposed: ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 676. • ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 826; [2006] ATPR 42-123. The ACCC succeeded in establishing that the respondents had breached s 45 by threatening to exercise a right under the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW) to object to the grant of liquor licences that had been applied for where, after negotiation with the licence applicants, the threatened objection was withdrawn when the licence applicants agreed to restrictions on the respective liquor licences. Penalties totalling $7 million imposed: ACCC v Liquorland (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1799. • ACCC v DM Faulkner Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1666. The respondent and nine other small scrap metal merchants in NSW participated in arrangements under which they would agree among themselves as to who would bid at scrap metal auctions, with the others not bidding against the nominated bidder; then, after the auction, participants would reconvene at another location,

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

429

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45.660]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45

[CCA.45.660] usually a local hotel or club, to allocate the scrap metal purchased at the auction among themselves. Penalties totalling $270,000 imposed. See also ACCC v Ferndale Recyclers Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1597. • ACCC v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) 199 ALR 423; [2003] ATPR 41-945. The respondent was found not to have entered into an arrangement or understanding that had the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition for medical services in the Perth metropolitan area when it entered certain agreements with the developer of the hospital concerning the terms and conditions for doctors engaged at the hospital.

[CCA.45.680] Cases: profitability schemes • TPC v Service Station Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 206; 116 ALR 643; [1993] ATPR 41-260. The Commission failed to prove a breach of s 45(2)(a)(i) against the Association when it introduced a scheme to restore profitability to service stations. [CCA.45.700] Cases: requirements contracts • ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165; ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 148. The respondent was found to have contravened s 45 in entering contracts to exclusively acquire flyash from electricity generators in South East Queensland to prevent a rival gaining access to unprocessed flyash and to prevent a rival from entering the South East Queensland concrete grade flyash market. Penalties totalling $16.77 million imposed: [2016] FCA 453. [CCA.45.720] Cases: refusing supply • ACCC v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17; (2000) 169 ALR 344; [2000] ATPR 41-749. The ACCC failed to prove an arrangement or understanding when in circumstances in which Amcor withdrew an offer to purchase waste paper from a supplier to a competitor of Amcor. Amcor’s competitor had been told of the Amcor offer and became agitated by it and there had been telephone calls from the competitor to Amcor allegedly about pricing, but that was not established. • Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd v ASX Operations Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 385; 93 ALR 523; [1990] ATPR 41-007. The Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, a company limited by guarantee and subsidiaries of which operated the Australian stock exchanges, electronically supplied information concerning transactions on the stock exchanges to processors of that data. The applicant, one of the processors of that data who provided a service which competed with services of the respondent, was unsuccessful in a claim that the respondent’s terms of supply breached s 45 as they were entered for the purpose, or had the effect, of substantially lessening competition. The applicant succeeded, however, on a claim based on the existence of an exclusionary provision: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069; ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 27 FCR 492; 100 ALR 125; [1991] ATPR 41-109. • Carson Machinery Nominees Pty Ltd v Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-934. A dealer in farm machinery whose dealership was terminated, failed in an application for interlocutory relief because the evidence of the relevant market and the effect of the cancellation on competition in that market was not sufficient. [CCA.45.740] Cases: tenders • Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752. The applicant failed in its challenge to a tender for the provision of towage services at the port of Bunbury. The applicant had sought to establish that, by tendering for an exclusive

430

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 45

supplier of towage services under a licence that set caps on prices, the Port Authority was proposing to enter a contract the effect of which would be to fix the price of towage services at the port. • TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] ATPR 41-406. Building companies that were members of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors (AFCC) met with an officer of the AFCC and agreed, in relation to a government tender, that the successful tenderer would pay fees to the AFCC and the unsuccessful tenderers. The Commission instituted proceedings for breach of s 45. On withdrawal by one of the participants of its defence, penalties of $400,000 plus costs were imposed. Penalties totalling $50,000 were imposed by agreement on two of the executives involved, and $25,000 on another. In addition penalties of $500,000 each were imposed on two other corporate respondents: TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 3) [1995] ATPR 41-415; TPC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 6) [1995] ATPR 41-431; ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [1999] FCA 954; (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468; [1999] ATPR 41-732; ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 9) [2000] FCA 23; [2000] ATPR 41-756. • TPC v Email Ltd [1980] FCA 86; (1980) 43 FLR 383; 31 ALR 53; [1980] ATPR 40-172. The only two manufacturers of electricity meters in Australia were unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Commission for alleged breaches of s 45 in relation to the supply of meters to statutory bodies. [CCA.45.760] Cases: other • SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116. In a dispute that arose when a grocery retailer moved from one supplier to another and a claim was made that the agreement between the retailer and the supplier amounted to an exclusionary provision or an anticompetitive agreement, the applicant failed to establish that the supplier and the retailer were in the same market. • Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062; [2007] ATPR (Digest) 46-274. The applicant failed to establish that the respondents, who had entered an agreement to bid for football rights against the applicant, allegedly to drive the applicant out of the business of providing content to a rival pay television provider, had done so for the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a relevant market, or that their agreement had that effect. Upheld on appeal: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. • Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. The Institute changed its training requirements to include, at no additional cost, training materials which were previously charged separately. The court accepted that this amounted to a contract with each student that, for the fee paid, the student would get the materials at no additional cost and may not elect not to receive those materials. This was found to be a relevant contract. However, this did not have a substantial effect on competition in any market. • Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1991) 27 FCR 535; 100 ALR 479; 38 IR 394; 33 AILR 105; [1991] ATPR 41-084. A group of 170 football players took action under the then Trade Practices Act (now the CCA) over restrictive rules relating to their engagement to play first grade football. They were found not entitled to bring action under s 45 because that section operates in relation to contracts, arrangements and understandings having an adverse effect on competition in a market for goods or services. The definition of “services” in s 4(1) specifically excludes contracts of service: upheld on appeal Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1991) 31 FCR 242; 103 ALR 319; 38 IR 427; [1991] ATPR 41-141. See also Adamson v West Perth Football Club (1979) 39 FLR 199; 27 ALR 475; [1979] ATPR 40-134.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

431

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45.760]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45A

[CCA.45.780]

[CCA.45.780]

Further reading

See Armitage, “The Evolution of the ‘Substantial Lessening of Competition’ Test – a Review of Case Law” (2016) 44 ABLR 74; Fisse, “Facilitating Practices, Vertical Restraints and Most Favoured Customers: Australian Competition Law is Ill-equipped to Meet the Challenge” (2016) 44 ABLR 325; Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012) Ch 6; Pengilley, “Long-term Supply Contracts: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?” (1998) 6 TPLJ 203; Henrick & Penhallurick, “Most Favoured Nation Clauses: Bane or Boon?” (2004) 12 TPLJ 78. 45A

Contracts, arrangements or understandings in relation to prices [Repealed]

[S 45A rep Act 59 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 1 item 21; am Act 131 of 2006; Act 88 of 1995; Act 206 of 1978; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 25]

SECTION 45A COMMENTARY Price fixing ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45A.20] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.45A.40]

[CCA.45A.20]

Price fixing

This section, repealed in 2009, was replaced by Pt IV Div 1 from 24 July 2009. That Division, which continues the per se ban on price fixing, introduced parallel civil and criminal penalties for cartel conduct. [CCA.45A.40]

Further reading

See RV Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012) Ch 6; Pengilley, Trade Associations, Fairness and Competition (Law Book Co Ltd, 1981), pp 149-155; Vary, “Price Fixing: Flawed Past, Uncertain Future” (1995) 3 TPLJ 126; Hoel, “Crime does Not Pay but Hard-Core Cartel Conduct May: Why it Should be Criminalised” (2008) 16 TPLJ 102; Truong, “The ACCC’s Immunity Policy: A New Application of the Prisoner’s Dilemma” (2007) 15 TPLJ 219; Reid & Henderson, “Cartels: Criminal Sanctions and Immunity Policy” (2006) 14 TPLJ 199. 45B

Covenants affecting competition

(1) [Unenforceable covenants] A covenant, whether the covenant was given before or after the commencement of this section, is unenforceable in so far as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations on a corporation or on a person associated with a corporation if the covenant has, or is likely to have, the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market in which the corporation or any person associated with the corporation supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the covenant, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. (2) [Unenforceable covenants and improper conduct] A corporation or a person associated with a corporation shall not: (a) require the giving of a covenant, or give a covenant, if the proposed covenant has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market in which: (i) the corporation, or any person associated with the corporation by virtue of paragraph (7)(b), supplies or acquires, is likely to supply or acquire, or would, but for the covenant, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services; or

432

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45B

(ii)

any person associated with the corporation by virtue of the operation of paragraph (7)(a) supplies or acquires, is likely to supply or acquire, or would, but for the covenant, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services, being a supply or acquisition in relation to which that person is, or would be, under an obligation to act in accordance with directions, instructions or wishes of the corporation; (b) threaten to engage in particular conduct if a person who, but for subsection (1), would be bound by a covenant does not comply with the terms of the covenant; or (c) engage in particular conduct by reason that a person who, but for subsection (1), would be bound by a covenant has failed to comply, or proposes or threatens to fail to comply, with the terms of the covenant. (3) [Deemed to be giving a covenant] Where a person: (a) issues an invitation to another person to enter into a contract containing a covenant; (b) makes an offer to another person to enter into a contract containing a covenant; or (c) makes it known that the person will not enter into a contract of a particular kind unless the contract contains a covenant of a particular kind or in particular terms; the first-mentioned person shall, by issuing that invitation, making that offer or making that fact known, be deemed to require the giving of the covenant. (4) [Covenants that together lessen competition] For the purposes of this section, a covenant or proposed covenant shall be deemed to have, or to be likely to have, the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market if the covenant or proposed covenant, as the case may be, would have, or be likely to have, that effect when taken together with the effect or likely effect on competition in that market of any other covenant or proposed covenant to the benefit of which: (a) a corporation that, or person who, is or would be, or but for subsection (1) would be, entitled to the benefit of the first-mentioned covenant or proposed covenant; or (b) a person associated with the corporation referred to in paragraph (a) or a corporation associated with the person referred to in that paragraph; is or would be, or but for subsection (1) would be, entitled. (5) [Where this section does not apply] The requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant does not constitute a contravention of this section by reason that giving effect to the covenant would, or would but for the operation of subsection 88(8) or section 93, constitute a contravention of section 47 and this section does not apply to or in relation to engaging in conduct in relation to a covenant by way of: (a) conduct that contravenes, or would but for the operation of subsection 88(8) or section 93 contravene, section 47; or (b) doing an act by reason of a breach or threatened breach of a condition referred to in subsection 47(2), (4), (6) or (8), being an act done by a person at a time when: (i) an authorization under subsection 88(8) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition; or (ii) by reason of subsection 93(7) conduct engaged in by that person on that condition is not to be taken to have the effect of substantially lessening competition within the meaning of section 47; or (iii) a notice under subsection 93(1) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition. [Subs (5) am Act 88 of 1995, s 11]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

433

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45B (6) [Section does not apply to associated persons or bodies corporate] This section does not apply to or in relation to a covenant or proposed covenant where the only persons who are or would be respectively bound by, or entitled to the benefit of, the covenant or proposed covenant are persons who are associated with each other or are bodies corporate that are related to each other. (7) [Association between person and corporation] For the purposes of this section, section 45C and subparagraph 87(3)(a)(ii), a person and a corporation shall be taken to be associated with each other in relation to a covenant or proposed covenant if, and only if: (a) the person is under an obligation (otherwise than in pursuance of the covenant or proposed covenant), whether formal or informal, to act in accordance with directions, instructions or wishes of the corporation in relation to the covenant or proposed covenant; or (b) the person is a body corporate in relation to which the corporation is in the position mentioned in subparagraph 4A(1)(a)(ii). (8) [Where subs (2) is not contravened] The requiring by a person of the giving of, or the giving by a person of, a covenant in relation to which subsection 88(5) applies is not a contravention of subsection (2) of this section if: (a) the covenant is subject to a condition that the covenant will not come into force unless and until the person is granted an authorization to require the giving of, or to give, the covenant; and (b) the person applies for the grant of such an authorization within 14 days after the covenant is given; but nothing in this subsection affects the application of paragraph (2)(b) or (c) in relation to the covenant. (9) [Application] This section does not apply to or in relation to a covenant or proposed covenant if: (a) the sole or principal purpose for which the covenant was or is required to be given was or is to prevent the relevant land from being used otherwise than for residential purposes; or (b) both of the following subparagraphs apply: (i) the person who required or requires the covenant to be given was or is, at that time, a registered charity; (ii) the covenant was or is required to be given for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that registered charity; or (c) both of the following subparagraphs apply: (i) the covenant was or is required to be given in pursuance of a legally enforceable requirement made by a registered charity; (ii) that legally enforceable requirement was or is made for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that registered charity. [Subs (9) am Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 items 161 and 162, with effect from 3 Dec 2012] [Editor’s Note: Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 item 168 provides the amendment by Sch 2 item 162 applies in relation to covenants given on or after the commencement of this item. Sch 2 item 168 commenced on 3 Dec 2012.] [S 45B am Act 169 of 2012; Act 88 of 1995; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 25]

SECTION 45B COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45B.20] Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................... [CCA.45B.40] Definition: covenant ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.45B.60] Concept: engage in particular conduct – section 45B(2)(c) .......................................................... [CCA.45B.80]

434

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Penalties ...................................................................................................................................... Cases ........................................................................................................................................... Commission and Tribunal Decisions ........................................................................................... Other developments ....................................................................................................................

[CCA.45B.20]

s 45B [CCA.45B.100] [CCA.45B.120] [CCA.45B.140] [CCA.45B.160]

Outline

This section, which applies to covenants in real estate transactions, is essentially in the same terms as s 45, although it adds two additional matters: • threatening to engage in offending conduct if the other party to the covenant does not comply with its terms; and • engaging in offending conduct because a person who would, but for the section, be bound by the covenant proposes not to comply with it. Each of the concepts in this section is explained in [CCA.45.80]. Although restrictive covenants attaching to land do not come within the restraint of trade doctrine, at least when created by prior owners, this section makes it clear that such provisions will be subject to the Act if they have an anticompetitive purpose or effect: Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastapol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10; (1976) 133 CLR 390. Unlike s 45(2), which imposes obligations on corporations only, s 45B(2) purports to impose obligations on “a person associated with a corporation” as well as on corporations. Whether or not this is constitutionally sound has not yet been tested, although the issue may be academic given that the uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Sch 1 equivalent of s 45B to individuals. [Mark up last reference as follows: Sch 1 equivalent of s 45B] [CCA.45B.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including repeal of s 45B, on the basis that it unnecessarily duplicates s 45. A further amendment proposes to define the term “contract” in s 4 to include a covenant. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.45B.60]

Definition: covenant

This term is defined to mean a covenant annexed to or running with an estate or interest in land, whether that estate or interest is an estate or interest at law or in equity, and whether or not the covenant is for the benefit of other land: s 4. [CCA.45B.80]

Concept: engage in particular conduct – section 45B(2)(c)

The term “engaging in conduct” means doing or refusing to do any act, including the giving of a covenant: s 4(2)(a). In ADC Centres Pty Ltd v Kilstream Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 549; [1979] ATPR 40-119, it was argued that the filing of a cross-claim in an equity suit amounted to “engaging in particular conduct” within the meaning of s 45B(2)(c). Franki J, without deciding, was not inclined to accept the submission. [CCA.45B.100]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach, in the case of a corporation, can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

435

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45B.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45B

[CCA.45B.100]

In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. [CCA.45B.120]

Cases

ADC Centres Pty Ltd v Kilstream Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 549; [1979] ATPR 40-119. The owner of a shopping centre complex, part of which was leased to the operator of a leisure and sports complex under a lease entered prior to 1 July 1977, which provided that the lessor would not lease adjacent premises for the purpose, inter alia, of a retail sporting goods shop, instituted proceedings under the then TPA (now the CCA) against the respondent alleging that the clause in the lease amounted to a breach of s 45B. On an application for interlocutory relief the court refused the interim injunction sought. [CCA.45B.140] Commission and Tribunal Decisions • Re the Shell Company of Australia Ltd (1975) TRPS 108.1. The major oil companies sought authorisations to continue with petrol station tied arrangements. After the Commission’s first public hearing, authorisation was denied. • Re Tooth & Co Ltd [1979] ATPR 40-113. The Tribunal refused an authorisation sought by brewers Tooth and Tooheys for tied arrangements in leases of hotels. [CCA.45B.160]

Other developments

The July 2008, the ACCC’s Report of the ACCC inquiry into the Competitiveness of Retail Prices for Standard Groceries stated: Developers and shopping centre managers prefer to lease space to the [major supermarket chains] over other supermarkets. Having a Coles and/or Woolworths located in a shopping centre is almost essential for centre operators. While there are sound economic reasons for the [chains] being preferred, this significantly impedes the ability of competing supermarkets to access prime locations. The [chains] also engage in deliberate strategies designed to ensure they maintain exclusive access to prime sites. In particular, the [chains] include terms in their leases that effectively prevent centre managers leasing space in centres to competing supermarkets. These lease agreements can be considered under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC is considering the application of Part IV of the Act to a number of these arrangements. See: http://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Grocery%20inquiry%20report%20-%20July%202008.pdf. Following publication of the report, the ACCC embarked on negotiations with supermarkets and operators of chain smallgoods stores to seek to resolve the issue without resort to litigation. In September 2009, Coles and Woolworths entered s 87B undertakings with the ACCC in which they undertook not to Woolworths undertakes for the purposes of section 87B of the Act that it will not: • give effect to, or threaten to give effect to, a restrictive provision contained in a lease agreement that is in operation as at the commencement of the Undertaking, after a period of five years from the date at which the relevant supermarket commenced trading; and • enter into leases that include provisions prohibiting or penalising lessors from granting a lease agreement to, or allowing the entry of, another supermarket operator in the shopping centre in which the relevant supermarket is located. Subsequently ALDI, Franklins, SPAR Australia, Foodworks and Metcash, all entered similar undertakings. See: http://registers.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=893471= a2da716b9168b7809f0d8eb136328eb9=Undertaking.PDF and http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/ further-agreements-address-restrictive-supermarket-leases.

436

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

45C

s 45C

Covenants in relation to prices

(1) [Variation to subs 45B(1)] In the application of subsection 45B(1) in relation to a covenant that has, or is likely to have, the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services supplied or acquired by the persons who are, or but for that subsection would be, bound by or entitled to the benefit of the covenant, or by any of them, or by any persons associated with any of them, in competition with each other, that subsection has effect as if the words “if the covenant has, or is likely to have, the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market in which the corporation or any person associated with the corporation supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the covenant, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services” were omitted. [Subs (1) am Act 17 of 1986, s 16]

(2) [Variation to subs 45B(1)] In the application of subsection 45B(2) in relation to a proposed covenant that has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services supplied or acquired by the persons who would, or would but for subsection 45B(1), be bound by or entitled to the benefit of the proposed covenant, or by any of them, or by any persons associated with any of them, in competition with each other, paragraph 45B(2)(a) has effect as if all the words after the words “require the giving of a covenant, or give a covenant” were omitted. (3) [Covenants that fix prices] For the purposes of this Act, a covenant shall not be taken not to have, or not to be likely to have, the effect, or a proposed covenant shall not be taken not to have the purpose, or not to have, or not to be likely to have, the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services by reason only of: (a) the form of the covenant or proposed covenant; or (b) any description given to the covenant by any of the persons who are, or but for subsection 45B(1) would be, bound by or entitled to the benefit of the covenant or any description given to the proposed covenant by any of the persons who would, or would but for subsection 45B(1), be bound by or entitled to the benefit of the proposed covenant. (4) [Where covenant deemed to fix prices] For the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section, but without limiting the generality of those provisions: (a) a covenant shall be deemed to have, or to be likely to have, the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services supplied as mentioned in subsection (1) if the covenant has, or is likely to have, the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, such a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to a re-supply of the goods or services by persons to whom the goods or services are supplied by the persons who are, or but for subsection 45B(1) would be, bound by or entitled to the benefit of the covenant, or by any of them, or by any persons associated with any of them; and (b) a proposed covenant shall be deemed to have the purpose, or to have, or to be likely to have, the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods or services supplied as mentioned in subsection (2) if the proposed covenant has the purpose, or

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

437

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45C

[CCA.45C.20] would have or be likely to have the effect, as the case may be, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, such a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to a re-supply of the goods or services by persons to whom the goods or services are supplied by the persons who would, or would but for subsection 45B(1), be bound by or entitled to the benefit of the proposed covenant, or by any of them, or by any persons associated with any of them.

[Subs (4) am Act 88 of 1995, s 12]

(5) [Persons in competition] The reference in subsection (1) to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons in competition with each other includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons who, but for a provision of any contract, arrangement or understanding or of any proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, would be, or would be likely to be, in competition with each other in relation to the supply or acquisition of the goods or services. [S 45C am Act 88 of 1995; Act 17 of 1986; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 25]

SECTION 45C COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................... Definition: covenant ....................................................................................................................... Penalties ........................................................................................................................................

[CCA.45C.20]

[CCA.45C.20] [CCA.45C.40] [CCA.45C.60] [CCA.45C.80]

Outline

This section, which applies to covenants in real estate transactions, is essentially in the same terms as s 45A. [CCA.45C.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016 the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review), including repeal of s 45B, implementing on the basis that it unnecessarily duplicates s 45. A further amendment proposes to define the term “contract” in s 4 to include a covenant. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.45C.60]

Definition: covenant

This term is defined to mean a covenant annexed to or running with an estate or interest in land, whether that estate or interest is an estate or interest at law or in equity, and whether or not the covenant is for the benefit of other land: s 4. [CCA.45C.80]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach, in the case of a corporation, can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A) at [CCA.76.20]. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87.

438

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

45D

s 45D

Secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage

(1) [Prohibited conduct] In the circumstances specified in subsection (3) or (4), a person must not, in concert with a second person, engage in conduct: (a) that hinders or prevents: (i) a third person supplying goods or services to a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); or (ii) a third person acquiring goods or services from a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); and (b) that is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of the fourth person. Note 1: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(7). Note 2: This section also has effect subject to section 45DD, which deals with permitted boycotts. (2) [Purposes that include prohibited purpose] A person is taken to engage in conduct for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) if the person engages in the conduct for purposes that include that purpose. (3) [Where fourth person is a corporation] Subsection (1) applies if the fourth person is a corporation. (4) [Where third person is a corporation while fourth person is not] Subsection (1) also applies if: (a) the third person is a corporation and the fourth person is not a corporation; and (b) the conduct would have or be likely to have the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of the third person. [S 45D subst Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1; Act 98 of 1993, s 43; am Act 176 of 1981; Act 73 of 1980; Act 207 of 1978; insrt Act 81 of 1977, s 25]

SECTION 45D COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.20] Proposals for Change ................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.40] Concept: person ............................................................................................................................ [CCA.45D.60] Concept: engage in conduct ......................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.80] Concept: in concert ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.100] Concept: hinders or prevents ...................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.120] Concept: supply of goods or services ......................................................................................... [CCA.45D.140] Concept: corporation ................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.160] Concept: purpose ........................................................................................................................ [CCA.45D.180] Concept: substantial .................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.200] Concept: would have or be likely to have ................................................................................... [CCA.45D.220] Authorisation ................................................................................................................................ [CCA.45D.240] Remedies .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.260] Cases .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45D.280] Penalties: relevance of reputational damage .............................................................................. [CCA.45D.300]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

439

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45D [CCA.45D.20]

[CCA.45D.20] Outline

Certain boycotts engaged in for the purpose, and which are likely to have the effect, of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of the person unable to be supplied or unable to supply goods or services will breach the Act, if the other requirements of s 45D are met. The boycotts covered by this section are called “secondary boycotts” because they involve third parties imposing a boycott that is indirect in the sense that it is imposed on one person, otherwise than by its employees, in order to damage the business of another person. An example would be when members of a union place a ban on loading or unloading cargo in order to affect the importer. Section 45D is the first of a number of provisions which deal with such boycotts. Essentially, the section bans two or more people engaging in conduct together which hinders or prevents a third person supplying goods or services to a corporation or acquiring goods or services from a corporation if one of the purposes for doing so is to cause substantial loss or damage to the business of the corporation, and the conduct is likely to have that effect. The section also bans two or more people engaging in conduct together which hinders or prevents a corporation supplying goods or services to a fourth person (not being a corporation) or acquiring goods or services from the fourth person, if one of the purposes for doing so is to cause substantial loss or damage to the business of the corporation and the fourth person, or the conduct is likely to have that effect. However, in both instances the section does not apply if the corporation, third person or fourth person is an employer of any of the people engaging in the conduct. Unions engaging in boycotts are specifically caught by s 45DC. Not all boycotts coming within the section will be in breach of the Act. Section 45DD sets out circumstances in which boycotts will be permitted. Essentially, this is where they relate to the pursuit of legitimate employment-related matters or are directed to protecting the environment or consumers. Although s 45D requires, for constitutional reasons, that a corporation’s business be affected, the uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Sch 1 version of s 45D without that requirement. [CCA.45D.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announced that it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that ss 45D – 45DE be retained. The Review also recommended that the “ACCC pursue secondary boycott cases with increased vigour, comparable to that which it applies in pursuing other contraventions of the competition law. It should also publish in its annual report the number of complaints made to it in respect of different parts of the CCA, including secondary boycott conduct and the number of such matters investigated and resolved each year”. The Review also noted that firms that contravene the secondary boycott provisions are liable to a civil penalty not exceeding $750,000 – much lower than penalties for contravention of other competition law provisions ($10 million). The Government agreed that there is no good reason for the penalties to vary so widely and stated that it will draft legislation to increase the maximum penalty for secondary boycotts to the same level as that applying to other breaches of the competition law. [CCA.45D.60]

Concept: person

The term “person” includes corporations: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 22(1)(a). It can also include unions and may include government departments: Industrial Enterprises Pty Ltd v Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia [1979] ATPR 40-100 at 17,987. [CCA.45D.80]

Concept: engage in conduct

The term “engage in conduct” is defined in s 4(2) to mean:

440

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45D

Doing or refusing to do an act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or giving effect to a provision of, an understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant. See also Seamen’s Union of Australia v Utah Development Co (1978) 144 CLR 120; 53 ALJR 83; 22 ALR 291; [1978] ATPR 40-090 at 136 (CLR) per Gibbs J. [CCA.45D.100]

Concept: in concert

Section 45D will not be breached unless those involved in the impugned conduct act “in concert”. Acting in concert involves knowing conduct which results from communication between those concerned and not simply simultaneous actions occurring spontaneously, and also involves “contemporaneity and community of purpose”: J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers (WA Branch) (1992) 44 IR 264. The acts which constitute the relevant conduct do not, however, need to coincide precisely in time. All that is required is a temporal relationship sufficiently close to be able to be said to be in concert: Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 at 337 (FLR); Epitoma Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1984) 3 FCR 55; 54 ALR 730; [1984] ATPR 40-478 at 58-59 (FCR). EXAMPLE • Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Meat & Allied Trades Federation of Australia (1991) 32 FCR 318; 40 IR 303; 104 ALR 199; 34 AILR 121; [1991] ATPR 41-151, the court held that mere advocacy in favour of a strike by union officials was not sufficient to result in the union acting in concert with those members of the union who actually took strike action.

[CCA.45D.120]

Concept: hinders or prevents

The term “prevent” is well understood and needs no explanation. The term “hinder” means “in any way affecting to an appreciable extent the ease of the usual way of supply of goods or services”: Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers (WA) v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; 48 IR 452; 114 ALR 551; [1993] ATPR 41-245; Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 32; 65 ALJR 262; 99 ALR 275; [1991] ATPR 41-098. Conduct hindering or preventing the supply or acquisition of goods or services within the meaning of s 45D can involve conduct engaged in by threat and verbal intimidation as well as by physical interference: ABC v Parish [1980] FCA 33; (1980) 43 FLR 129; 29 ALR 228; [1980] ATPR 40-154. EXAMPLE • Industrial Enterprises Pty Ltd v Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia [1979] ATPR 40-100, Lockhart J found that a union ban on the movement of goods through the wharves at Brisbane hindered the applicant, notwithstanding that it was open to the applicant to import its goods through other Australian ports. • Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd v Hall (1989) 85 ALR 375; [1989] ATPR 40-931, Burchett J refused to accept that a boycott on the supply of milk to a retailer in New South Wales, made because the retailer imported milk from Victoria, did not hinder the retailer even though it was able to source all of its requirements from Victoria. The decision was upheld on other grounds: Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 32; 65 ALJR 262; 99 ALR 275; [1991] ATPR 41-098.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

441

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45D.120]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45D [CCA.45D.140]

[CCA.45D.140] Concept: supply of goods or services

The term “supply” is a word of wide import. It is defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as follows: 1. to furnish (a person, establishment, place, etc) with what is lacking or requisite; 2. to furnish or provide (something wanting or requisite); 3. to make up (a deficiency); make up for (a loss, lack, absence, etc); satisfy (a need, demand, etc); 4. to fill (a place, vacancy, etc). Section 4C provides that: • references in the Act to the “supply of goods” include agreeing to supply goods and supplying goods with services or other property, or both; and • references in the Act to the “supply of services” include agreeing to supply services and supplying services with property or other services, or both. As to the terms “goods” and “services”, see [CCA.4.340] and [CCA.4.500] respectively. [CCA.45D.160]

Concept: corporation

See definitions of the terms “corporation”, “financial corporation”, “foreign corporation” and “trading corporation” in s 4. In Nauru Local Government Council v Australian Shipping Offıcers Assn (1978) 34 FLR 281; 27 ALR 535; [1978] ATPR 40-087, Northrop J held that the Nauru Local Government Council, a body incorporated under the Nauru Local Government Council Ordinance 1951, was a foreign corporation for the purposes of s 45D. In addition, the section can apply to Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and their instrumentalities to the extent that they carry on business: see ss 2A and 2B. The distinction between corporations and individuals for the purposes of this and other provisions of Pt IV is, however, academic. The uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Competition Code (see Pt XIA and Sch 1) to individuals. Schedule 1 contains a direct equivalent to s 45D which applies to all “persons”. [CCA.45D.180]

Concept: purpose

The “purpose” referred to in s 45D(1) is the operative subjective purpose of those engaging in the relevant conduct in concert: Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 (Deane J). Purpose refers to the “end in view” – the effect sought to be achieved by the conduct, not the motive of those involved in the boycott. Motive is the reason for seeking an outcome, rather than the outcome sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. Whether or not conduct has been engaged in for a particular purpose is to be determined by reference to the real reasons for the conduct and consideration of what was the object in the minds of those engaging in the conduct, rather than whether those engaged in the conduct appreciated the effect of the conduct and are therefore to be assumed to have engaged in it for a purpose that produces that result: Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 at 349 (FLR) per Deane J. While the best evidence of purpose might be the statements made by the person in the witness box, such statements must be tested closely and received with the greatest caution: Pascoe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 11 ATD 108; 30 ALJR 402 at 403 (ALJR); ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR).

442

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45D

In Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd v Amalgamated Milk Vendors Assn Inc (1989) 24 FCR 127; 91 ALR 397; 32 AILR 147; [1990] ATPR 40-997, a case in which the court had to determine whether a ban by milk vendors on the supply of milk to the applicant’s supermarkets in New South Wales because it brought milk in from Victoria, came within s 45D, the court said ((1989) 24 FCR 127 at 135): Conduct falling within the opening words of s 45D will rarely be adopted out of disinterested malice. Ordinarily, the purpose of inflicting damage upon the business of a person is to cause that person to modify its behaviour in some way for the advantage of the person occasioning the damage, or its members. In other words, the damage is a means to an end. Consequently, although a primary purpose of the milk vendors was to protect their own businesses, another purpose which they had was to damage or injure the appellant’s business. That was the means by which they intended to achieve their primary purpose. Upon the view of s 45D(1) long accepted in this court, that is enough. See also Building Workers’ Industrial Union of Australia v Odco Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 104; 37 IR 380; 99 ALR 735; 33 AILR 163; [1991] ATPR 41-092; Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federated Union of Workers (WA) v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; 48 IR 452; 114 ALR 551; [1993] ATPR 41-245. The issue, for the purposes of s 45D, is not whether persons combined for a particular purpose but whether particular conduct was engaged in for the purpose specified in the section,and whether the conduct was engaged in by persons acting in concert with each other. In s 45D(1) the impropriety which is proscribed is engaging in conduct that hinders or prevents a third person supplying or acquiring goods or services. The critical and specified purpose is the purpose for which the conduct itself is engaged in: Wribass Pty Ltd v Swallow [1979] FCA 3; (1979) 38 FLR 92; [1979] ATPR 40-101 (Smithers J). The purpose of causing substantial loss or damage need not be the only purpose of a secondary boycott for s 45D to apply. A person is taken to engage in conduct for a purpose if the conduct was engaged in for purposes which include that purpose: s 45D(2). Section 4F(1)(b), which provides that a person is deemed to have engaged in conduct for a particular purpose if that purpose was a substantial reason for that person engaging in the conduct, but that provision does not apply: s 4F(2). For a case where the applicant failed to prove relevant purpose, see Keith Russell Simplicity Funerals Pty Ltd v Cremation Society of Australia (ACT) Ltd (1982) 57 FLR 472; 40 ALR 125; [1982] ATPR 40-273. [CCA.45D.200]

Concept: substantial

The word “substantial” means that the loss or damage must be more than trivial or minimal. It must be meaningful or relevant to the competitive process. It is not sufficient for liability for the relevant effect to be quantitatively more than insignificant or not insubstantial: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ). In the context of s 45D(1), the word “substantial” is used in a relative sense. The term means real or of substance and not insubstantial or nominal: Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138. [CCA.45D.220]

Concept: would have or be likely to have

The words “would have or be likely to have” permit the court to look not only at what has been established on the facts, but also to infer, from those facts, what was likely to be the consequences of the conduct, looking at the position at or about the time the conduct was engaged in: see TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512 at 50 (FCR), Franki J. The term “likely” in s 45D was considered in Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 at 339 (FLR), where Bowen CJ said: The word “likely” is one which has various shades of meaning. It may mean “probable” in the sense of “more probable than not” – “more than a 50 per cent chance”. It may mean “material risk” as seen by

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

443

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45D.220]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45D

[CCA.45D.220]

a reasonable man “such as might happen”. It may mean “some possibility” – more than a remote or bare chance. Or, it may mean that the conduct engaged in is inherently of such a character that it would ordinarily cause the effect specified … The circumstances to which s 45D may apply are so various that I hesitate to place a gloss on the section by preferring one meaning of “likely” rather than another for the determination of this particular case. In the same case, Deane J said (at 346): Section 45D(1) proscribes conduct only if it be engaged in for the purpose of causing loss or damage to the business of the relevant corporation. Even though conduct be engaged in for such a purpose it will be outside the proscription contained in the subsection unless “it would have or be likely to have” that effect. Plainly the reference to “would be likely to have” is meant to convey a lower degree of likelihood than the reference to “would have” … The conclusion which I have reached is that, in the context of s 45D(1), the preferable view is that the word “likely” is not synonymous with “more likely than not” and that if relevant conduct is engaged in for the purposes of causing loss or damage to the business of the relevant corporation, it will suffice, for the purposes of the subsection, if that conduct is, in the circumstances, such that there is a real chance or possibility that it will, if pursued, cause such loss or damage. Whether or not such conduct is likely, in that sense, to have that effect is a question to be determined by reference to well-established standards of what could reasonably be expected to be the consequence of the relevant conduct in the circumstances. In determining the answer to that question, it will be relevant that the persons engaging in the conduct do so with the purpose of causing such loss or damage. [CCA.45D.240] Authorisation Conduct coming within s 45D may be authorised on public interest grounds: see s 88(7). [CCA.45D.260] Remedies The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 of up to $750,000 on a body corporate (including unions) and up to $500,000 on individuals. However, the court must take account of the matters set out in s 87AA. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. However, s 87AA provides that, in exercising its powers in relation to proceedings for breach of s 45D the court is to have regard to any action the applicant could have taken in an industrial tribunal. [CCA.45D.280] Cases • ACCC v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCA 504. The court refused, on conditions, to stay proceedings instituted against the union and two of its officers for alleged contraventions of s 45D. Subsequent to the ACCC instituting proceedings, the two officers were charged with criminal offences. Application by the union for leave to appeal dismissed: [2016] FCAFC 97. • A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1047; (2007) 165 IR 94. The union was found to have breached s 45D when two union officials, through threats, verbal intimidation and physical interference engaged in conduct that prevented the applicant, a demolition and excavation contractor, from providing excavation services at a site in Wollongong. • ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730; [2007] ATPR 42-140. The union consented to orders that it had breached s 45D in relation to a ban on pouring cement on a construction site in Perth. Pecuniary penalties totalling $100,000 plus disclosure and compliance program orders were made. • ACCC v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2004] FCA 517; [2004] ATPR 42-002. Three unions picketed a construction site and closed it down in

444

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45DA

protest against the use of workplace agreements and the use of non-local labour. The unions and certain officials consented to findings that they had breached s 45D, injunctions and penalties. For cases under earlier versions of s 45D see earlier editions of this book. [CCA.45D.300]

Penalties: relevance of reputational damage

It will often be the case that a party involved in a contravention will suffer reputational damage that would be increased if a declaration to that effect is ordered. Is that to be taken into account? It seems not, at least where there is no evidence that the reputational damage had, or would have, any effect on profitability. This is because the reputational harm suffered was caused by failure to comply with statutory obligations: ACCC v AirAsia Berhad Company [2012] FCA 1413 (Tracey J) applied in ACCC v Multimedia International Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 439 (Edelman J). However, it can be taken into account in assessing general deterrence: ACCC v Multimedia International Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 439 (Edelman J). Apart from the indirect relevance of financial consequences of adverse publicity to specific deterrence, should the financial consequences from publicity also be considered in a direct manner in order to reduce the possibility of double punishment? In Eva v Southern Motors Box Hill Pty Ltd (1977) 30 FLR 213; 15 ALR 428; [1977] FCA 2, Smithers J was inclined to take into account the consequences of adverse publicity when it goes beyond the mere fact that the respondent was being prosecuted for named offences, at least as “part of the background against which the penalty should be assessed”. In TPC v Cue Design Pty Ltd (1996) 85 A Crim R 500; [1996] ATPR 41-475, O’Loughlin J accepted that the respondent had suffered financially from adverse publicity given to these proceedings, but declined to reduce the penalty for that reason, noting that, where the Commission had acted reasonably “one would think that this sort of publicity is the usual consequence of a prosecution of this nature”. However, in ACCC v Multimedia International Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 439, Edelman J expressed the view that, in appropriate circumstances, His Honour would be inclined to take account of the financial consequences of adverse publicity because “loss of sales and loss of profits are matters that can be taken into account in the assessment of specific and general deterrence”. 45DA Secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial lessening of competition (1) [Prohibited conduct] In the circumstances specified in subsection (3), a person must not, in concert with a second person, engage in conduct: (a) that hinders or prevents: (i) a third person supplying goods or services to a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); or (ii) a third person acquiring goods or services from a fourth person (who is not an employer of the first person or the second person); and (b) that is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing a substantial lessening of competition in any market in which the fourth person supplies or acquires goods or services. Note 1: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(7). Note 2: This section also has effect subject to section 45DD, which deals with permitted boycotts. (2) [Purposes that include prohibited purpose] A person is taken to engage in conduct for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) if the person engages in the conduct for purposes that include that purpose.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

445

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45D.300]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45DA

[CCA.45DA.20]

(3) [Conduct which causes loss to person who is a corporation] Subsection (1) applies if: (a) the third person or the fourth person is a corporation, or both of them are corporations; and (b) the conduct would have or be likely to have the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of one of those persons who is a corporation. [S 45DA insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

SECTION 45DA COMMENTARY Outline ......................................................................................................................................... Concept ....................................................................................................................................... Authorisation ............................................................................................................................... Remedies ....................................................................................................................................

[CCA.45DA.20]

[CCA.45DA.20] [CCA.45DA.40] [CCA.45DA.60] [CCA.45DA.80]

Outline

Section 45DA deals with secondary boycotts which are engaged in for the purpose of causing substantial lessening of competition in any market. A secondary boycott will occur, for the purposes of this section, in the following circumstances: • if two or more people, acting together, engage in conduct which hinders or prevents a supplier supplying goods or services to another person, where the person to be supplied is not the employer of any of the people so acting; or • if two or more people, acting together, engage in conduct which hinders or prevents someone else acquiring goods or services from a supplier, where the supplier is not the employer of any of the people so acting. Boycotts engaged in for the purpose, and which are likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market in which the person unable to be supplied or unable to supply goods carries on business, will breach the Act, if the other requirements of the section are met. The other requirements of the section are: • the supplier or the person to be supplied must be a corporation; and • the conduct must have the likely effect of causing substantial loss or damage to that corporation. The purpose of causing substantial loss or damage does not have to be the only or even the predominant purpose for which the conduct was engaged in: s 45DA(2). Unions engaging in boycotts are specifically caught by s 45DC. Not all boycotts coming within the section will be in breach of the Act. Section 45DD sets out circumstances in which boycotts will be permitted. Essentially, this is where they relate to the pursuit of legitimate employment related matters or are directed to protecting the environment or consumers. [CCA.45DA.40]

Concept

For annotations of the terms used in this section, see [CCA.45D.60] – [CCA.45D.260]. [CCA.45DA.60]

Authorisation

Conduct coming within s 45DA may be authorised on public interest grounds: see s 88(7). [CCA.45DA.80]

Remedies

The consequence of a breach will be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76, in the case of a corporation, of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 86E.

446

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45DB

In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. 45DB

Boycotts affecting trade or commerce

(1) [Conduct preventing movement of goods] A person must not, in concert with another person, engage in conduct for the purpose, and having or likely to have the effect, of preventing or substantially hindering a third person (who is not an employer of the first person) from engaging in trade or commerce involving the movement of goods between Australia and places outside Australia. Note 1: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(7). Note 2: This section also has effect subject to section 45DD, which deals with permitted boycotts. (2) [Purposes that include prohibited purpose] A person is taken to engage in conduct for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) if the person engages in the conduct for purposes that include that purpose. [S 45DB insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

SECTION 45DB COMMENTARY Outline ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DB.20] Concept ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DB.40] Authorisation ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DB.60] Remedies .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DB.80] Cases ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.45DB.100]

[CCA.45DB.20]

Outline

This section deals with boycotts directed against the movement of goods to and from Australia. The section prohibits two or more persons engaging in conduct for the purpose of preventing or substantially hindering someone other that their employer importing or exporting goods, if the conduct is also likely to have that effect. The purpose of causing substantial loss or damage does not have to be the only or even the predominant purpose for which the conduct was engaged in: s 45DB(2). Unions engaging in boycotts are specifically caught by s 45DC. Not all boycotts coming within the section will be in breach of the Act. Section 45DD sets out circumstances in which boycotts will be permitted. Essentially this is where they relate to the pursuit of legitimate employment related matters or are directed to protecting the environment or consumers. [CCA.45DB.40]

Concept

For annotations of the terms used in this section, see [CCA.45D.60] – [CCA.45D.260]. [CCA.45DB.60]

Authorisation

Conduct coming within s 45DB may be authorised on public interest grounds: see s 88(7). [CCA.45DB.80]

Remedies

See [CCA.45D.260]. [CCA.45DB.100] Cases • ACCC v Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1549; (2001) 114 FCR 472; 187 ALR 487; 50 AILR 4-521; [2002] ATPR 41-849. The MUA admitted contravening s 45DB, engaging in

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

447

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45DB.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45DC

[CCA.45DB.100]

conduct for the purpose, and having the effect, of substantially hindering the operators of two ships (the “Star Sea Bird” and the “Anangel Eagle”) from engaging in trade or commerce involving the movement of goods between Australia and places outside Australia. The MUA consented to declarations and proffered undertakings to the Court. The MUA also consented to the imposition of a pecuniary penalty assessed by the court at $150,000. An injunction was also granted: ACCC v Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1807; [2002] ATPR 41-857. • ANL Container Line Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1999] FCA 1882; [2000] ATPR 41-769. The court issued an interlocutory injunction against the union to restrain it from hindering the applicant’s cargo ship sailing. • Farah (Aust) Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW) (No 1) [1997] ATPR 41-583. The court found there to be a serious question to be tried when an employer sought interlocutory orders against 14 workers who had picketed its business in support of better wages, to restrain breaches of s 45DB(1). 45DC

Involvement and liability of employee organisations

Certain organisations taken to be acting in concert (1) If 2 or more persons (the participants), each of whom is a member or officer of the same organisation of employees, engage in conduct in concert with one another, whether or not the conduct is also engaged in in concert with another person, then, unless the organisation proves otherwise, the organisation is taken for the purposes of sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB: (a) to engage in that conduct in concert with the participants; and (b) to have engaged in that conduct for the purposes for which the participants engaged in it. Consequences of organisation contravening subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) (2) The consequences of an organisation of employees engaging, or being taken by subsection (1) to engage, in conduct in concert with any of its members or officers in contravention of subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) are as set out in subsections (3), (4) and (5). Loss or damage taken to have been caused by organisation’s conduct (3) Any loss or damage suffered by a person as a result of the conduct is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have been caused by the conduct of the organisation. Taking proceedings if organisation is a body corporate (4) If the organisation is a body corporate, no action under section 82 to recover the amount of the loss or damage may be brought against any of the members or officers of the organisation in respect of the conduct. Taking proceedings if organisation is not a body corporate (5) If the organisation is not a body corporate: (a) a proceeding in respect of the conduct may be brought under section 77, 80 or 82 against an officer of the organisation as a representative of the organisation’s members and the proceeding is taken to be a proceeding against all the persons who were members of the organisation at the time when the conduct was engaged in; and (b) subsection 76(2) does not prevent an order being made in a proceeding mentioned in paragraph (a) that was brought under section 77; and (c) the maximum pecuniary penalty that may be imposed in a proceeding mentioned in paragraph (a) that was brought under section 77 is the penalty applicable under section 76 in relation to a body corporate; and (d) except as provided by paragraph (a), a proceeding in respect of the conduct must not be brought under section 77 or 82 against any of the members or officers of the organisation; and

448

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45DC

(e)

for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order given or made in a proceeding mentioned in paragraph (a) that was brought under section 77 or 82, process may be issued and executed against the following property or interests as if the organisation were a body corporate and the absolute owner of the property or interests: (i) any property of the organisation or of any branch or part of the organisation, whether vested in trustees or however otherwise held; (ii) any property in which the organisation or any branch or part of the organisation has a beneficial interest, whether vested in trustees or however otherwise held; (iii) any property in which any members of the organisation or of a branch or part of the organisation have a beneficial interest in their capacity as members, whether vested in trustees or however otherwise held; and (f) if paragraph (e) applies, no process is to be issued or executed against any property of members or officers of the organisation or of a branch or part of the organisation except as provided in that paragraph.

[S 45DC insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

SECTION 45DC COMMENTARY Outline ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DC.20] Pleadings .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DC.40] Cases .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DC.60]

[CCA.45DC.20]

Outline

This section provides the mechanism for drawing unions into the ambit of the prohibitions contained in ss 45D to 45DB. Section 45DC(1) provides a rebuttable presumption that a union is engaging in conduct if two or more of the participants in the conduct under consideration are members or officers of the union. If a union is unable to rebut the presumption, then any loss or damage resulting from the conduct of its members or officers is taken to have been caused by the union: s 45DC(3). The remaining provisions of s 45DC deal with recovery rights where the union is, and where it is not, incorporated. Although this annotation refers to unions, the provisions are equally applicable to organisations of employees which are not registered unions. [CCA.45DC.40]

Pleadings

Whether s 45DC should be pleaded has been said to be a difficult question, similar to the question whether ACL s 4 (former TPA s 51A) should be pleaded (see [ACL.4.200]). However the intention to rely upon s 45DC should be made clear in the pleadings to avoid forensic disadvantage: A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1047; (2007) 165 IR 94. [CCA.45DC.60] Cases • A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1047; (2007) 165 IR 94. The actions of two union officials hindered and prevented a third party from acquiring services from the applicant through threats and verbal intimidation, as well as physical interference, were found sufficient to clearly result in the CMFEU being taken by s 45DC, to have been involved in the breach of s 45DC by the individuals concerned. • ANL Container Line Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1999] FCA 1882; [2000] ATPR 41-769. The fact that crew members on a ship held themselves out as belonging to the union, the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

449

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45DC.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45DD

[CCA.45DC.60] fact that the union was a party to the enterprise agreement relating to the ship and that the crew members hindered the movement of the ship was sufficient for the presumption in s 45DC to arise.

45DD

Situations in which boycotts permitted

Dominant purpose of conduct relates to employment matters—conduct by a person (1) A person does not contravene, and is not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in conduct if the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of that person or of another person employed by an employer of that person. Dominant purpose of conduct relates to employment matters—conduct by employee organisation and employees (2) If: (a) an employee, or 2 or more employees who are employed by the same employer, engage in conduct in concert with another person who is, or with other persons each of whom is: (i) an organisation of employees; or (ii) an officer of an organisation of employees; and (b) the conduct is only engaged in by the persons covered by paragraph (a); and (c) the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of the employee, or any of the employees, covered by paragraph (a); the persons covered by paragraph (a) do not contravene, and are not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in the conduct. Dominant purpose of conduct relates to environmental protection or consumer protection (3) A person does not contravene, and is not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in conduct if: (a) the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to environmental protection or consumer protection; and (b) engaging in the conduct is not industrial action. Note 1: If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is a body corporate: (a)

it is a “person” who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption; and (b) each of its members is a “person” who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption. Note 2: If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is not a body corporate: (a) it is not a “person” and is therefore not subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) (consequently, this exemption does not cover the organisation as such); but (b) each of its members is a “person” who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Meaning of industrial action—basic definition (4) In subsection (3), industrial action means: (a) the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work, where: (i) the terms and conditions of the work are prescribed, wholly or partly, by a workplace instrument or an order of an industrial body; or

450

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45DD

(ii)

the work is performed, or the practice is adopted, in connection with an industrial dispute; or (b) a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work, or on acceptance of or offering for work, in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by a workplace instrument or by an order of an industrial body; or (c) a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work, or on acceptance of or offering for work, that is adopted in connection with an industrial dispute; or (d) a failure or refusal by persons to attend for work or a failure or refusal to perform any work at all by persons who attend for work. For this purpose, industrial body and workplace instrument have the same meanings as in the Fair Work Act 2009. [Subs (4) am Act 54 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 18 items 24 and 25; SLI 50 of 2006, reg 3 and Sch 15 items 1 and 2]

Meaning of industrial action—further clarification (5) For the purposes of subsection (3): (a) conduct is capable of constituting industrial action even if the conduct relates to part only of the duties that persons are required to perform in the course of their employment; and (b) a reference to industrial action includes a reference to a course of conduct consisting of a series of industrial actions. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not protect people not covered by them (6) In applying subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) to a person who is not covered by subsection (1), (2) or (3) in respect of certain conduct, disregard the fact that other persons may be covered by one of those subsections in respect of the same conduct. Defences to contravention of subsection 45DB(1) (7) In a proceeding under this Act in relation to a contravention of subsection 45DB(1), it is a defence if the defendant proves: (a) that a notice in respect of the conduct concerned has been duly given to the Commission under subsection 93(1) and the Commission has not given a notice in respect of the conduct under subsection 93(3) or (3A); or (b) that the dominant purpose for which the defendant engaged in the conduct concerned was to preserve or further a business carried on by him or her. Each person to prove defence (8) If: (a) a person engages in conduct in concert with another person; and (b) the other person proves a matter specified in paragraph (7)(a) or (b) in respect of that conduct; in applying subsection 45DB(1) to the first person, ignore the fact that the other person has proved that matter. Note: Section 415 of the Fair Work Act 2009 limits the right to bring actions under this Act in respect of industrial action that is protected action for the purposes of that section. [Subs (8) am Act 54 of 2009, s 3 and Sch 18 item 26] [S 45DD am Act 54 of 2009; SLI 50 of 2006; insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

SECTION 45DD COMMENTARY Outline ......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45DD.20] Definition: environmental protection ........................................................................................... [CCA.45DD.40]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

451

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45DD

[CCA.45DD.20]

What must be established .......................................................................................................... [CCA.45DD.60] Onus of proof .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.45DD.80] Cases ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.45DD.100]

[CCA.45DD.20]

Outline

Section 45DD sets out situations in which boycotts otherwise in breach of ss 45D to 45DB will not be regarded as breaching the Act. The situations are where the dominant purpose of the conduct relates to: • remuneration, conditions of employment, working hours or working conditions of employees engaged in the conduct; or • environmental protection or consumer protection and the conduct is not industrial action. “Industrial action” is defined for this purpose to mean bans, limitations or restrictions on the performance or work, performance of work in a different manner to the way in which it is normally performed, or strike action: s 45DD(4). The defences provided by this section may not apply to all participants in the boycott. Each person claiming a defence must prove that the defence is applicable to them: s 45DD(8). Although s 45DD(3) should be given a wide construction because its terms show that Parliament was conscious of ensuring that the fundamental democratic right of expression of opinions on government and political matters relating to environmental and consumer protection should not be unduly proscribed or constrained, nevertheless the Parliament also sought, in s 45DB(1), to protect the nation’s overseas trade from concerted inference with the movement of goods in or out of Australia, but excepted, in s 45DD, certain categories of permitted interference. Both ss 45DB and 45DD interact, requiring a construction of their literal or grammatical meanings which respects the context which each section gives the other: Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355; 72 ALJR 841; 153 ALR 490 at 381-382 (FCR) [69–71], 384-385 (FCR) [78–80] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. [CCA.45DD.40]

Definition: environmental protection

Section 45DD provides that boycotts otherwise in breach of ss 45D to 45DB will not be regarded as breaching the Act where the dominant purpose of the conduct relates to environmental protection. The expression “environmental protection” referred to a particular location, thing or habitat in which a particular individual instance or aggregation of flora or fauna or artifice exists and to the preservation of the existence and or characteristics of that environment: Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445. [CCA.45DD.60]

What must be established

Where it is asserted that the dominant purpose is consumer protection or environmental protection the respondent must establish, as an objective element, that a dominant purpose was substantially related to consumer protection or environmental protection. The subjective element is that he or she had the dominant purpose to engage in the conduct complained of which was “substantially related to” the objective element: Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445. [CCA.45DD.80]

Onus of proof

It is preferable to approach the construction of s 45DD(3) as requiring the respondent to an application under s 45DB(1) to discharge the burden of proving that s 45DD(3) applies, notwithstanding the express reference to a defence under s 45DD(7), but this is not a concluded view on the issue: Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445.

452

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 45E

[CCA.45DD.100] Cases • Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC 156; (2008) 169 FCR 583; 249 ALR 445. The respondent failed to establish that he was entitled to the defence provided by s 45DD when he entered a live sheep pen and fed them material designed to ensure that they would not be suitable for live export because he did not have the dominant purpose of protection of the sheep in the environment of the paddock. He was, by his own admission, seeking to protect them from the conditions they would experience on board a ship from Australia to the Middle East. 45E Prohibition of contracts, arrangements or understandings affecting the supply or acquisition of goods or services Situations to which section applies (1) This section applies in the following situations: (a) a supply situation—in this situation, a person (the first person) has been accustomed, or is under an obligation, to supply goods or services to another person (the second person); or (b) an acquisition situation—in this situation, a person (the first person) has been accustomed, or is under an obligation, to acquire goods or services from another person (the second person). Despite paragraphs (a) and (b), this section does not apply unless the first or second person is a corporation or both of them are corporations. Note: For the meanings of accustomed to supply and accustomed to acquire, see subsections (5) and (7). Prohibition in a supply situation (2) In a supply situation, the first person must not make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, with an organisation of employees, an officer of such an organisation or a person acting for and on behalf of such an officer or organisation, if the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding contains a provision included for the purpose, or for purposes including the purpose, of: (a) preventing or hindering the first person from supplying or continuing to supply such goods or services to the second person; or (b) preventing or hindering the first person from supplying or continuing to supply such goods or services to the second person, except subject to a condition: (i) that is not a condition to which the supply of such goods or services by the first person to the second person has previously been subject because of a provision in a contract between those persons; and (ii) that is about the persons to whom, the manner in which or the terms on which the second person may supply any goods or services. Prohibition in an acquisition situation (3) In an acquisition situation, the first person must not make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, with an organisation of employees, an officer of such an organisation or a person acting for and on behalf of such an officer or organisation, if the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding contains a provision included for the purpose, or for purposes including the purpose, of: (a) preventing or hindering the first person from acquiring or continuing to acquire such goods or services from the second person; or (b) preventing or hindering the first person from acquiring or continuing to acquire such goods or services from the second person, except subject to a condition: (i) that is not a condition to which the acquisition of such goods or services by the first person from the second person has previously been subject because of a provision in a contract between those persons; and

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

453

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45DD.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45E (ii)

that is about the persons to whom, the manner in which or the terms on which the second person may supply any goods or services.

No contravention if second person gives written consent to written contract etc (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to a contract, arrangement or understanding if it is in writing and was made or arrived at with the written consent of the second person. Meaning of accustomed to supply (5) In this section, a reference to a person who has been accustomed to supply goods or services to a second person includes (subject to subsection (6)): (a) a regular supplier of such goods or services to the second person; or (b) the latest supplier of such goods or services to the second person; or (c) a person who, at any time during the immediately preceding 3 months, supplied such goods or services to the second person. Exception to subsection (5) (6) If: (a) goods or services have been supplied by a person to a second person under a contract between them that required the first person to supply such goods or services over a period; and (b) the period has ended; and (c) after the end of the period, the second person has been supplied with such goods or services by another person and has not also been supplied with such goods or services by the first person; then, for the purposes of the application of this section in relation to anything done after the second person has been supplied with goods or services as mentioned in paragraph (c), the first person is not to be taken to be a person who has been accustomed to supply such goods or services to the second person. Meaning of accustomed to acquire (7) In this section, a reference to a person who has been accustomed to acquire goods or services from a second person includes (subject to subsection (8)): (a) a regular acquirer of such goods or services from the second person; or (b) a person who, when last acquiring such goods or services, acquired them from the second person; or (c) a person who, at any time during the immediately preceding 3 months, acquired such goods or services from the second person. Exception to subsection (7) (8) If: (a) goods or services have been acquired by a person from a second person under a contract between them that required the first person to acquire such goods or services over a period; and (b) the period has ended; and (c) after the end of the period, the second person has refused to supply such goods or services to the first person; then, for the purposes of the application of this section in relation to anything done after the second person has refused to supply goods or services as mentioned in paragraph (c), the first person is not to be taken to be a person who has been accustomed to acquire such goods or services from the second person. Note: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(7A). [S 45E reinsrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1; rep Act 98 of 1993, s 44; insrt Act 73 of 1980, s 5]

454

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 45E

SECTION 45E COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45E.20] Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................... [CCA.45E.40] Definitions: purpose ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.45E.60] Remedies ....................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45E.80] Cases ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.45E.100]

[CCA.45E.20]

Outline

This section deals with certain conduct which indirectly leads to a secondary boycott, although it may not come within ss 45D to 45DB. The section has its genesis in conduct considered by the court in Leon Laidely Pty Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (1980) 42 FLR 352; 28 ALR 129; [1980] ATPR 40-147. There are two situations to which the section applies – the situation of a supplier and that of a customer. In the first situation – the supply situation – the section prohibits the supplier entering an arrangement with a union for the purpose of hindering or preventing the supplier supplying goods or services to a customer whom the supplier is under an obligation to, or is accustomed to supply: s 45E(2). A typical situation covered by this provision is where industrial action is threatened against a supplier unless that supplier agrees not to supply a customer who is the real target of the union threatening the industrial action. The second situation – the acquisition situation – is the reverse of the first. The section prohibits a person who customarily acquires goods or services from a supplier from entering an arrangement with a union for the purpose of hindering or preventing that person continuing to deal with a supplier from whom the person is accustomed or under some obligation to acquire goods or services: s 45E(3). The section only applies if either the supplier or the customer is a corporation: s 45E(1). Section 45E(4) and (5) clarify the meaning of the terms “accustomed to supply” and “accustomed to acquire”. [CCA.45E.40]

Proposals for Change

On 31 March 2015, the government released the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review). The Panel recommended that: • ss 45E and 45EA be amended so that they apply to awards and industrial agreements, except to the extent they relate to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of employees; • the present limitation in those sections to the effect that the prohibitions only apply to restrictions affecting persons with whom an employer “has been accustomed, or is under an obligation”, to deal, should be removed; • the ACCC should be given the right to intervene in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission and make submissions concerning compliance with ss 45E and 45EA. A protocol should be established between the ACCC and the Fair Work Commission; • the maximum penalty for breaches of the sections should be the same as that applying to other breaches of the competition law. In its response to the Review on 24 November 2015, the Government noted the recommendation and stated that the matter would be considered as part of the Productivity Commission’s current review of the workplace relations framework. [CCA.45E.60]

Definitions: purpose

“Purpose” means the subjective purpose of the participants in the contract, arrangement or understanding. This is not to be confused with the motive, which is the reason for seeking an end rather than the effect sought to be achieved: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing &

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

455

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.45E.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 45EA

[CCA.45E.60]

Allied Services Union of Australia v Corke Instrument Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 799; (2005) 223 ALR 480; News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. Section 45E(3) requires each party to the contract, arrangement or understanding to have had the subjective purpose the section proscribes. The opening words of s 45E(3) prohibit the “first person” from making a contract or arrangement or arriving at an understanding of the kind the section specifies. Because it takes two or more parties to make a contract, arrangement or enter an understanding, all of the parties must have the relevant subjective purpose; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v ACCC [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] ATPR 42-177. Although for other restrictive trade practices provisions s 4F provides that the relevant purpose may be one of a number of purposes as long as it is a “substantial” purpose, that section does not apply in relation to s 45E(2) or (3). However, that does not mean that the purpose has to be the operative purpose of each party, because, by including the words “for purposes including the purpose” the section envisages that there may be a number of purposes. A purpose will suffice for s 45E(3) if it is a cause of the inclusion of the provision: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v ACCC [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] ATPR 42-177. [CCA.45E.80]

Remedies

See [CCA.45D.260]. [CCA.45E.100] Cases • ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 678. The ACCC failed to prove that the union and two of its officials were accessories to a breach of s 45E when a contractor terminated a subcontractor who employed non-union labour to install plasterboard in a residential building under construction. • ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1777; (2006) 157 FCR 162; [2006] ATPR (Digest) 46-271. The respondent admitted entering an agreement with a union, in breach of s 45E(3), that it would not employ electrical contractors at a power station unless the contractors entered a certified agreement with the union. The union was found, after a contested hearing, to have breached s 45E(3). See also ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 144; [2007] ATPR 42-151; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v ACCC [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] ATPR 42-177. • PG & LJ Smith Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Lanskey Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1618; (2004) 137 IR 98. The applicant failed to prove a breach of s 45E when its demolition contract was cancelled because, on the facts, the applicant failed to prove that the reason for cancellation came within the section. 45EA

Provisions contravening section 45E not to be given effect

A person must not give effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding if, because of the provision, the making of the contract or arrangement, or the arriving at the understanding, by the person: (a) contravened subsection 45E(2) or (3); or (b) would have contravened subsection 45E(2) or (3) if: (i) section 45E had been in force when the contract or arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at; and (ii) the words “is in writing and” and “written” were not included in subsection 45E(4).

456

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Note:

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(7A).

[S 45EA insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

SECTION 45EA COMMENTARY [CCA.45EA.20] Cases • ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 162; [2006] FCA 1777; [2006] ATPR (Digest) 46-271. The respondent admitted entering an agreement with a union, in breach of s 45EA, that it would not employ electrical contractors at a power station unless the contractors entered a certified agreement with the union. The union was found, after a contested hearing, to have breached s 45EA. See also ACCC v IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 144; [2007] ATPR 42-151. 45EB

Sections 45D to 45EA do not affect operation of other provisions of Part

Nothing in section 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45DC, 45DD, 45E or 45EA affects the operation of any other provision of this Part. [S 45EB insrt Act 60 of 1996, s 3 and Sch 17 item 1]

46

Misuse of market power

(1) [Corporations not to take advantage of market power] A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of: (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. [Subs (1) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; subst Act 17 of 1986, s 17]

(1AAA) [Subsection (1) contravened: corporation sells goods below cost] If a corporation supplies goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying the goods or services, the corporation may contravene subsection (1) even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred by supplying the goods or services. [Subs (1AAA) insrt Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1A]

(1AA) [Subsection (1) contravened: corporation sells goods below cost] A corporation that has a substantial share of a market must not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods or services, for the purpose of: (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; or (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. [Subs (1AA) insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1A]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

457

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.45EA.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46 (1AB) [Determining whether corporation has substantial market share] For the purposes of subsection (1AA), without limiting the matters to which the Court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a corporation has a substantial share of a market, the Court may have regard to the number and size of the competitors of the corporation in the market. [Subs (1AB) insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1A]

(1A) [References to competitors and persons] For the purposes of subsections (1) and (1AA): (a) the reference in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1AA)(a) to a competitor includes a reference to competitors generally, or to a particular class or classes of competitors; and (b) the reference in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (1AA)(b) and (c) to a person includes a reference to persons generally, or to a particular class or classes of persons. [Subs (1A) am Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 items 1B–1D; insrt Act 222 of 1992, s 4]

(2) [Where body corporate(s) related to corporation] If: (a)

a body corporate that is related to a corporation has, or 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is related to the one corporation together have, a substantial degree of power in a market; or (b) a corporation and a body corporate that is, or a corporation and 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is, related to that corporation, together have a substantial degree of power in a market; the corporation shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have a substantial degree of power in that market. [Subs (2) subst Act 17 of 1986, s 17]

(3) [Determining market power: body corporate] In determining for the purposes of this section the degree of power that a body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in a market, the court shall have regard to the extent to which the conduct of the body corporate or of any of those bodies corporate in that market is constrained by the conduct of: (a) competitors, or potential competitors, of the body corporate or of any of those bodies corporate in that market; or (b) persons to whom or from whom the body corporate or any of those bodies corporate supplies or acquires goods or services in that market. [Subs (3) am Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; subst Act 17 of 1986, s 17]

(3A) [Determining market power: body corporate] In determining for the purposes of this section the degree of power that a body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in a market, the court may have regard to the power the body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in that market that results from: (a) any contracts, arrangements or understandings, or proposed contracts, arrangements or understandings, that the body corporate or bodies corporate has or have, or may have, with another party or other parties; and (b) any covenants, or proposed covenants, that the body corporate or bodies corporate is or are, or would be, bound by or entitled to the benefit of. [Subs (3A) am Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

(3B) [Subsections (3) and (3A) not limiting] Subsections (3) and (3A) do not, by implication, limit the matters to which regard may be had in determining, for the purposes of this section, the degree of power that a body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in a market. [Subs (3B) insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

458

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

(3C) [Substantial degree of market power] For the purposes of this section, without limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a body corporate has a substantial degree of power in a market, a body corporate may have a substantial degree of power in a market even though: (a) the body corporate does not substantially control the market; or (b) the body corporate does not have absolute freedom from constraint by the conduct of: (i) competitors, or potential competitors, of the body corporate in that market; or (ii) persons to whom or from whom the body corporate supplies or acquires goods or services in that market. [Subs (3C) am Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3; insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

(3D) [More than one corporation may have substantial market power] To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section, more than 1 corporation may have a substantial degree of power in a market. [Subs (3D) insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

(4) [References to market and power] In this section: (a) a reference to power is a reference to market power; (b) a reference to a market is a reference to a market for goods or services; and (c) a reference to power in relation to, or to conduct in, a market is a reference to power, or to conduct, in that market either as a supplier or as an acquirer of goods or services in that market. [Subs (4) subst Act 17 of 1986, s 17]

(4A) [Determining contravention of subs (1)] Without limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a corporation has contravened subsection (1), the court may have regard to: (a) any conduct of the corporation that consisted of supplying goods or services for a sustained period at a price that was less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods or services; and (b) the reasons for that conduct. [Subs (4A) am Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4A; insrt Act 159 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 2 item 3]

(5) [Where subs (1) not contravened] Without extending by implication the meaning of subsection (1), a corporation shall not be taken to contravene that subsection by reason only that it acquires plant or equipment. (6) [Clearances or authorisations] This section does not prevent a corporation from engaging in conduct that does not constitute a contravention of any of the following sections, namely, sections 45, 45B, 47, 49 and 50, by reason that an authorization or clearance is in force or by reason of the operation of subsection 45(8A) or section 93. [Subs (6) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 5; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 3 item 3; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(6A) [Whether corporation took advantage of market power] In determining for the purposes of this section whether, by engaging in conduct, a corporation has taken advantage of its substantial degree of power in a market, the court may have regard to any or all of the following: (a) whether the conduct was materially facilitated by the corporation’s substantial degree of power in the market; (b) whether the corporation engaged in the conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of power in the market;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

459

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46 (c)

whether it is likely that the corporation would have engaged in the conduct if it did not have a substantial degree of power in the market; (d) whether the conduct is otherwise related to the corporation’s substantial degree of power in the market. This subsection does not limit the matters to which the court may have regard. [Subs (6A) insrt Act 116 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5]

(7) [Purpose only ascertainable by inference from conduct] Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) notwithstanding that, after all the evidence has been considered, the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. [Subs (7) insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 17] [S 46 am Act 116 of 2008; Act 159 of 2007; Act 131 of 2006; Act 222 of 1992; Act 17 of 1986; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 25]

SECTION 46 COMMENTARY Context ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.40] Summary – misuse of market power ............................................................................................... [CCA.46.60] Summary – predatory pricing ........................................................................................................... [CCA.46.80] Issues with s 46(1) ......................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.100] Concept: substantial degree of power ........................................................................................... [CCA.46.120] Concept: substantial ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.140] Concept: market power .................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.160] Market power: absence of constraints ........................................................................................... [CCA.46.180] Market power: barriers to entry ...................................................................................................... [CCA.46.200] Market power: market share .......................................................................................................... [CCA.46.220] Market power and profitability ........................................................................................................ [CCA.46.240] Market power: submarkets ............................................................................................................ [CCA.46.260] Market power: aggregating sources of power ............................................................................... [CCA.46.280] Market power: arbitrary behaviour ................................................................................................. [CCA.46.300] Market power: financial strength .................................................................................................... [CCA.46.320] Market power: recoupment as an indicia ....................................................................................... [CCA.46.340] Market power: loss of power .......................................................................................................... [CCA.46.360] Market power: effect of s 46(4) ...................................................................................................... [CCA.46.380] Concept: market ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.400] Concept: take advantage ............................................................................................................... [CCA.46.420] Take advantage: exercising a statutory right ................................................................................. [CCA.46.440] Take advantage: exercising a legal or property right .................................................................... [CCA.46.460] Take advantage – absence of competitive conditions ................................................................... [CCA.46.480] Take advantage: power in another market .................................................................................... [CCA.46.500] Take advantage: financial resources ............................................................................................. [CCA.46.520] Predatory pricing – selling below cost ........................................................................................... [CCA.46.540] Predatory pricing – concept: market shares .................................................................................. [CCA.46.560] Predatory pricing – concept: a firm’s relevant cost ....................................................................... [CCA.46.580] Predatory pricing – concept: a sustained period ........................................................................... [CCA.46.600] Predatory pricing – business justification ...................................................................................... [CCA.46.620] Predatory pricing – evidence of misuse of market power ............................................................. [CCA.46.640] Selling below avoidable cost .......................................................................................................... [CCA.46.660] Refusal to supply ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.680]

460

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

Concept: purpose ........................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.700] Damaging a competitor .................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.720] Responsibility for employees and agents ...................................................................................... [CCA.46.740] Expert evidence ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.760] Related bodies corporate ............................................................................................................... [CCA.46.780] Burden of proof .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.800] Injunctions ...................................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.820] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.46.840] Exemptions .................................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.860] Pt IIIA and s 46 .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.46.880] Cases: refusal to buy ..................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.900] Cases: refusal to supply ................................................................................................................ [CCA.46.920] Cases: predatory pricing ................................................................................................................ [CCA.46.940] Cases: tenders ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.960] Cases: other ................................................................................................................................... [CCA.46.980] Further reading ............................................................................................................................ [CCA.46.1000]

[CCA.46.20]

Context

Competition law has its origins in attempts to constrain excesses by powerful corporations, whether alone or through arrangements with others of like mind. If a firm has an ability to foreclose a market, the result is a reduction in consumer welfare and in total welfare. History has shown that individual corporations can grow so large and become so dominant that they can control markets for their own benefit, leading to higher prices and reduced quality or service. The Australian law on monopolisation has its origins in US jurisprudence, although the Australian legislative approach has been unique. In the USA the objective is to protect the competitive process, rather than any particular group of competitors. The Sherman Act, enacted in 1890, contained the following provision: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize … any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony… The first monopolisation case to reach the United States Supreme Court, Standard Oil Co of New Jersey v United States 221 US 1 (1911), resulted in a decision declaring that Standard had engaged in monopolisation and ordering that company broken up. Australia ultimately took a different approach, focusing on the use of monopoly power (now market power) for a prohibited purpose, but Australia’s first attempt at a prohibition on monopolization, the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906, was explicitly based on the US Sherman Act. That Act failed because our constitutional jurisprudence was not sufficiently developed at the time, but it provided: Any person who monopolizes or attempts to monopolize or combines or conspires with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce with other countries or among the states with intent to control to the detriment of the public the supply or price of any service merchandise or commodity in guilty of an offence. The second attempt, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1965, followed the then UK approach and made monopolisation an examinable practice, moving away from the US approach and focusing on whether or not the monopolist had taken advantage of its dominant position. That Act provided that a person engaged in monopolisation if the person was in a dominant position in trade in goods of a particular description or in the supply of particular services in Australia or a part of Australia and took advantage of that position to induce another person to refuse to deal with a third party, to engage in price-cutting aimed at substantially damaging a competitor, or to impose prices or conditions that could not be imposed if it were not for the dominant position. Remedies were, however, insignificant from a practical viewpoint. In its original 1974 form, the Trade Practices Act followed the approach of the 1965 Act, prohibiting corporations in a position to substantially control a market from taking advantage of that power to

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

461

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.20]

eliminate or substantially damage a competitor, prevent a person entering any market, or prevent or deter a person from engaging in competitive behaviour in any market. The prohibition went through as number of changes between 1977 and 1986 when the Restrictive Trade Practices Revision Act 1986 replaced it with a new “misuse of market power” prohibition, providing that a corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power for any of the purposes prohibited by the Act. Subsequent amendments have introduced specific prohibitions on predatory pricing and modified the required level of market power a corporation must have before the prohibitions may be triggered. In Australia the law continues to require a finding that a corporation with market power has taken advantage of that power (rather than other power) and that it has done so for a prohibited purpose that relates to competitors rather than the competitive process. On the other hand, monopolization jurisprudence in the USA and Europe (where the term “abuse of dominance” is used) is quite different, focusing on the conduct of those with monopoly power on the competitive process. In the USA the monopolization offence involves the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and anticompetitive conduct to acquire or maintain that power: Verison Communications Inc v Law Offıces of Curtis V Trinko 540 US 398 (2004); US v Grinnell Corp 384 US 563 (1966). In the EU, the offence applies if a dominant firm engages in abuse. Abuse in that context is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of dominant firms that influences the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, through recourse to methods different from normal competition, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth of that competition: see, for example, Clearstream Banking AG v Commission of the European Communities [2009] EUECJ T-301/04. For further information about the context for and exploration of the Australian position in relation to misuse of market power, see Miller’s Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2011). [CCA.46.40]

Proposals for Change

On 16 March 2016, the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided to accept the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that s 46 be “re-framed to prohibit a corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market from engaging in conduct if the proposed conduct has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in that or any other market”. The Government’s decision included a recommendation that, in order to mitigate concerns about inadvertently capturing pro-competitive conduct, the section should direct the court, when determining whether conduct has the purpose, effect or likely effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market, to have regard to the extent to which the conduct: • has the purpose, effect or likely effect of increasing competition in the market, including by enhancing efficiency, innovation, product quality or price competitiveness; and • has the purpose, effect or likely effect of lessening competition in the market, including by preventing, restricting or deterring the potential for competitive conduct in the market or new entry into the market. The result is that s 46 is proposed to be replaced with a new provision focusing primarily on the conduct of a firm that has power in a market prohibiting that conduct, if it is exclusionary in the sense that it adversely affects the competitive process. The new section will also cover circumstances where the exclusionary conduct of a firm with market power has the purpose of adversely affecting the competitive process. The Bill to effect this change was introduced on 1 December 2016. It will be debated when Parliament resumes in the New Year.

462

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

The Bill proposed new section is: (1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in: (a) that market; or (b) any other market in which that corporation, or a body corporate that is related to that corporation: (i) supplies goods or services, or is likely to supply goods or services; or (ii) supplies goods or services, or is likely to supply goods or services, indirectly through one or more other persons; or (c) any other market in which that corporation, or a body corporate that is related to that corporation: (i) acquires goods or services, or is likely to acquire goods or services; or (ii) acquires goods or services, or is likely to acquire goods or services, indirectly through one or more other persons. (2) Without limiting the matters to which regard may be had in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether conduct has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market, regard must be had to the extent to which: (a) the conduct has the purpose of, or has or would be likely to have the effect of, increasing competition in that market, including by enhancing effıciency, innovation, product quality or price competiveness in that market; and (b) the conduct has the purpose of, or has or would be likely to have the effect of, lessening competition in that market, including by preventing, restricting, or deterring the potential for competitive conduct or new entry into that market. (3) A corporation is taken for the purposes of this section to have a substantial degree of power in a market if: (a) a body corporate that is related to that corporation has, or 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is related to that corporation together have, a substantial degree of power in that market; or (b) that corporation and a body corporate that is, or that corporation and 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is, related to that corporation, together have a substantial degree of power in that market. (4) In determining for the purposes of this section the degree of power that a body corporate or bodies corporate have in a market: (a) regard must be had to the extent to which the conduct of the body corporate or of any of those bodies corporate in that market is constrained by the conduct of: (i) competitors, or potential competitors, of the body corporate or of any of those bodies corporate in that market; or (ii) persons to whom or from whom the body corporate or any of those bodies corporate supplies or acquires goods or services in that market; and (b) regard may be had to the power the body corporate or bodies corporate have in that market that results from: (i) any contracts, arrangements or understandings that the body corporate or bodies corporate have with another party or other parties; or (ii) any proposed contracts, arrangements or understandings that the body corporate or bodies corporate may have with another party or other parties. (5) For the purposes of this section, a body corporate may have a substantial degree of power in a market even though:

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

463

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.40] (a) the body (b) the body (i) (ii)

corporate does not substantially control that market; or corporate does not have absolute freedom from constraint by the conduct of: competitors, or potential competitors, of the body corporate in that market; or persons to whom or from whom the body corporate supplies or acquires goods or services in that market. (6) Subsections (4) and (5) do not limit the matters to which regard may be had in determining, for the purposes of this section, the degree of power that a body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in a market. (7) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section, more than one corporation may have a substantial degree of power in a market. (8) In this section: (a) a reference to power is a reference to market power; and (b) a reference to a market is a reference to a market for goods or services; and (c) a reference to power in relation to, or to conduct in, a market is a reference to power, or to conduct, in that market either as a supplier or as an acquirer of goods or services in that market. Authorisation is expected to be available in relation to s 46, although that was not part of this Bill. [CCA.46.60]

Summary – misuse of market power

Section 46(1) is undoubtedly the most controversial provision in the Act, but that is unremarkable because its equivalents in the USA and the EU are also controversial. As the Privy Council said in Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Jul), a case under the NZ equivalent of s 46: The law … does not disable a trader who is in a dominant position in a market from competing with other traders in that or any other market. It is open to the trader to compete on price as well as quality, so long as he does not use his dominant position for the purpose of producing an effect which is anti-competitive. Moreover, the trader is entitled, before he enters upon a line of conduct which is designed to affect his competitors, to know with some certainty whether or not what he proposes to do is lawful … The question … is how, in this difficult area, lawful conduct can be distinguished from unlawful conduct. Section 46 proscribes misuses of market power by corporations that have a “substantial” degree of power in a market. It is not a breach of the section to have a large market share, or a monopoly in a market, nor is it a breach to have market power. The essence of the prohibition is that corporations with a substantial degree of market power may not use that power, in any market, for the purpose of: • substantially damaging or eliminating a competitor; • substantially damaging or eliminating competitors generally, a class of competitors or any particular competitor; and • preventing or deterring anyone from engaging in competitive conduct in any market. Although the section is directed at corporations, the uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Competition Code (see Pt XIA and Sch 1) to individuals. Schedule 1 contains a direct equivalent to s 46 which applies to all “persons”. What makes the section particularly controversial in Australia is that, in order to establish a contravention, the applicant has to establish that the respondent is using its market power (as opposed to any other power) and that it is doing so for one of the proscribed purposes stated above, whereas in the USA and EU the focus in on the conduct of firms with market power and the effect of that conduct on competition. The High Court of Australia has considered the section on four occasions over the past 40 years, clarifying its object and setting out principles in relation to its application, within the constraints that its drafting impose. The objective of s 46(1) was well described by the High Court in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989]

464

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

ATPR 40-925 in the following terms: [T]he object of s 46 is to protect the interests of consumers, the operation of the section being predicated on the assumption that competition is a means to that end. Competition by its very nature is deliberate and ruthless. Competitors jockey for sales, the more effective competitors injuring the less effective by taking sales away. Competitors almost always try to “injure” each other in this way. This competition has never been a tort … and these injuries are an inevitable consequence of the competition s 46 is designed to foster. Competition is dynamic. It tends to create conditions of constant turbulence. It generates instability. These circumstances trigger the emulation and striving which produce competitive benefits. Paternalistic control from a monopolist is antithetical to competition, and a construction of s 46 which permitted it, even if only in the short term, is inconsistent with the structure of the section and the legislation as a whole: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. One of the constraints is that s 46(1) requires the ACCC or other applicant to establish, not merely the co-existence of market power, conduct and a proscribed purpose, but a connection between the three such that the firm whose conduct is in question can be said to be taking advantage of its power: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [44]. The essential question to be asked, to determine whether or not a corporation has used market power is: how would the corporation have been likely to behave in a competitive market? Put another way, would a profit maximising firm operating in a workably competitive market profitably engage, in a commercial sense, in the conduct in question? The answer to that question involves a process of economic analysis, recognising that the purpose of s 46 is to promote competition rather than the private interests of particular persons. There is no requirement for the assumption that the corporation is operating in a perfectly competitive market. The comparison to be made is between what has been done, and what the corporation would be able to do, if the corporation lacked substantial market power: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160; Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. Market power is the power to behave in a market in a manner not constrained by competitors, such as the ability to raise prices without competitors taking away customers over time: see [CCA.46.160]. Selling below cost with a view to driving out competitors or keeping competitors from entering a market is classic monopolization or abusive conduct. This conduct dealt with explicitly in s 46(1AAA) and, for good measure, also in s 46(1AA). Section 46(1AAA) provides that a corporation that supplies goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation may contravene s 46(1) even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred. The section has had numerous additions and deletions over the years as successive governments have sought to refine, explain or expand its operation. The result has been to make the section even more difficult to interpret and apply. The following summaries illustrate that point. First, in assessing the market power of a corporation, the court is to take into account the extent to which the corporation is constrained by the conduct of competitors, potential competitors or by its suppliers or those to whom it supplies goods or services: s 46(3). Secondly, a corporation may have market power even though it does not have substantial control of the market and does not have absolute freedom from constraint by the conduct of competitors, suppliers or customers: s 46(3C). Third, in determining whether or not a corporation has market power, the market power of all related corporations may be aggregated: s 46(2). Fourth, in determining whether a corporation has market power, power that results from any contracts, arrangements or understandings may be taken into account: s 46(3A). Fifth, the section contains a list of factors to which the court may have regard in determining whether a corporation has used (“taken advantage”) of its market power. The list includes matters such as whether its

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

465

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.60]

power materially facilitated its conduct, and whether it was likely that the corporation would have engaged in the conduct if it did not have a substantial degree of market power: s 46(6A). Sixth, purpose can be established by inference from conduct: s 46(7). Finally, s 46(4) contains a number of provisions aimed at refining the effect of the prohibition contained in s 46(1). For instance, s 46(4)(c) provides that the power which a corporation may possess for the purposes of the section may be power either as a supplier or as an acquirer of goods or services. Given that significant pecuniary penalties can be incurred if s 46(1) is breached, it is incumbent on the courts to construe the section in such a way as to enable any corporation with substantial market power to know with certainty what is unlawful, before the corporation engages is any particular conduct: Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd v Clear Communications Ltd [1995] NZLR 385; Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. However, the section, as drafted, does not make that an easy task. [CCA.46.80]

Summary – predatory pricing

The prevailing view in relation to predatory pricing, both in Australia and internationally, was best expressed by Finkelstein J in ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261 as follows: I regard predatory pricing as one of the more insidious breaches of the Act. Firms engage in predatory pricing “to drive rivals out of business and scare off potential entrants”: Denis Carton and Jeffrey Perloff, Modern Industrial Organisation (4th ed, 2005) 352. Then, they raise prices, capturing monopoly/oligopoly rents. Once firms gain monopoly/oligopoly power, it is often extremely difficult to take that power away; firms are likely to be deterred from entering the market because they know the incumbent has the ability to undercut them and if new firms try to enter the market, the incumbent is likely to engage in predatory pricing to force them out. There are two provisions that proscribe predatory pricing. Section 46(1AA) prohibits a corporation that has a substantial market share supplying, or offering for supply, goods or services for a sustained period at below the relevant cost of supplying the goods or services, where the corporation’s purpose is to: • substantially damage or eliminate a competitor; • substantially damage or eliminate competitors generally, a class of competitors or any particular competitor; and • prevent or deter anyone from engaging in competitive conduct in any market. The second provision, s 46(1AAA), provides that a corporation may contravene s 46(1) if it supplies goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying the goods or services, even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred by supplying the goods or services. The prohibitions only apply when a corporation with a “substantial market share” supplies goods or services below “relevant cost” for a sustained period, and does so for an impermissible purpose. The term “substantial market share” is capable of a variety of meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. As it is imprecise and ambiguous, the term is an unfortunate choice: Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437; 2 TPR 315; 44 ALR 557; [1982] ATPR 40-318 at FLR 444. The Explanatory Memorandum provides no guidance as to its meaning. However, in s 46(1) the term means “considerable, solid or big” so the meaning to be attributed to the term in s 46(1AA) should be the same. The second element of the predatory pricing prohibition is that the respondent must have supplied, or offered to supply, goods or services at less than the “relevant cost” to the corporation. The section provides not guidance on this concept. Does it mean avoidable cost, average variable cost, or some other measure? In ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715 the allegation was that Boral had misused its market power by selling masonry products at less than “avoidable cost”. Heerey J described the term “avoidable cost” by use of the following example:

466

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

Assume that to make an article a firm has to pay $6 for raw materials and incurs fixed costs of $4. Thus a sale for any price above $10 will return a profit. If the firm sells for $8, it will sell below cost and accordingly make a loss. But it will recover its raw materials costs and make a contribution to its fixed costs. So the firm is better off making the article than not making it. But if the price received is less than $6, the firm is worse off. It would be better not to make the article. In this example $6 is the avoidable cost, the cost that will be avoided by not making the article. The term variable cost is often used as a synonym for avoidable cost, and was in the present case. In strict economic theory there are differences, but they are not material for present purposes. Given the difficulty in establishing the aviodable cost of a unit of production, average variable or average avoidable cost would appear to be an appropriate measure, but even where measures such as average avoidable cost are utilised it is not a simple matter to resolve whether or not a firm is selling below the relevant cost. It is likely that Australian courts will apply average variable cost in most cases but not adopt it as a single measure. Australian courts are likely to prefer to maintain a degree of flexibility. In Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167 the court expressed the view that no pre-ordained or fixed categories of level of pricing necessarily controls the drawing of an inference that there has been a misuse of market power. Whatever measure is chosen, a firm will not contravene the Act unless it has supplied, or offered for supply, the relevant goods or services at less than cost “for a sustained period”. How long that period might be is difficult to tell. It is not a contravention to supply goods or services at below the relevant cost. It is only a contravention if supply takes place for a proscribed purpose. The question of “purpose” is dealt with below. [CCA.46.100]

Issues with s 46(1)

Section 46(1) presents a number of enforcement challenges. The first is that there is no bright line between conduct that is pro-competitive and conduct that is anticompetitive. As the High Court has observed, competition is deliberate and ruthless, with firms jockeying for sales and the more effective firms taking away sales from the less effective: see Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. Secondly, conduct does not need to be punitive to amount to a misuse. For example, a firm with a substantial degree of power in a market might threaten to refuse to purchase a supplier’s products, not for any “punitive” purpose (the supplier might not yet have done or refused to do anything), but in order to deter the supplier from discounting prices of its product to competitors of the firm. Similarly, a firm might misuse its market power for a proscribed purpose as a means of improving its position in a market vis-à-vis its competitors: ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [20003] ATPR 41-935. Third, unlike the position in many other jurisdictions, s 46 requires proof that the firm has used its market power. As the High Court has said, more than the coexistence of market power, conduct and a proscribed purpose is required: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; ATPR 41-805. Fourthly, the focus is on the purpose for which market power has been, or is intended to be, used, rather on conduct that adversely affects the competitive process: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. Finally, although the object of s 46(1) is the protection of consumers, challengeable conduct is not conduct that harms the competitive process as such; it is conduct directed at damaging competitors or deterring competitors engaging in competitive conduct.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

467

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46 [CCA.46.120]

[CCA.46.120] Concept: substantial degree of power

A substantial degree of power in a market is not equivalent to monopoly power. The Act was deliberately amended in 1986 to lower the threshold: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 141; (2008) 170 FCR 16; 249 ALR 674, per Gyles J at [378]. Whether or not a corporation has a substantial degree of power in the relevant market is a threshold point in any s 46 analysis. It requires the court to consider the whole of the evidence relating to the market and the conduct of its participants. It is not legitimate for a court to base a finding of substantial market power simply upon incidents of abuse of power in that market. Almost all participants in a market have a degree of power, which may on occasions be abused. The power of the abuser may or may not be substantial, within the meaning of s 46(1): Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. A corporation will not have a substantial degree of market power unless it has a considerable or large degree of such power. The court must apply the concept of a substantial degree of market power to the circumstances of each case and in identifying whether the requisite degree of market power exists. It is a relative concept: Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167 at 63 (FCR); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. The terms “substantial” and “power” are separately considered in the following paragraphs. [CCA.46.140] Concept: substantial In the context of s 46, “substantial” is intended to signify “large or weighty” or “considerable, solid or big”: see Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165 at 40,273 (ATPR); explanatory memorandum to the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986. In Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 385; 103 ALR 41; [1991] ATPR 41-128 at 404-405 (FCR), Wilcox J said: It seems to me significant that Parliament did not make it an element of conduct contravening s 46(1) that the corporation succeed, or be able to succeed, in eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor … Unless driven to the conclusion that there is no other rational meaning of the word “substantial”, judges should not, by a side wind, introduce into the subsection an element of success. See also Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd v ASX Operations Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 385; 93 ALR 523; [1990] ATPR 41-007; Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138. [CCA.46.160] Concept: market power The power to which the section refers is market power – not any other type of power. If, for instance, the respondent exercises financial strength, then that is not something to which the section applies: see [CCA.46.320]. Market power is, in essence, the power to behave in a market in a manner not constrained by competitors in that market for a sustained period. This is often expressed as the ability to raise prices above the supply cost by restricting output, without rivals taking away customers over time; supply cost being the minimum cost an efficient firm would incur in producing the product: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 (Mason CJ and Wilson J). However, the ability to raise prices is not the sole indicia of market power. Market power may be manifested by other types of behaviour such as engaging in predatory pricing persistently or for a sustained period.: The essence of power is absence of constraint: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 (Gleeson CJ and Callinan J). Matters of

468

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

degree are involved, but in determining the degree of market power the court is required to have regard to the extent that the corporation is constrained by the conduct of competitors, potential competitors, suppliers and customers: s 46(3)(b). In an earlier case, TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 164; 124 ALR 685; [1994] ATPR 41-345 at 172 (FCR), Sheppard J described the position as follows: [I]f competition rules the market, the corporation will not have market power otherwise than because of its competitive strength. But if the body corporate for whatever reason is free to act in the market unrestrained by the competition therein, then it may be said to have a high degree of power in the market which does not have its origins in the competitive forces at play in the market. It is that power which s 46(1) seeks to affect if it is used for any of the proscribed purposes. Barriers to entry are also relevant in considering whether a corporation has market power and, if so the degree of that power: see [CCA.46.200], Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] 1 ECR 215; [1973] CMLR 199 at 248 (ECR); at 227 (CMLR). Although courts have often looked to market share to determine the degree of market power, a large market share does not necessarily mean that there is a substantial degree of market power: see [CCA.46.220]. In Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165, Lockhart J set out ((1992) 34 FCR 109 at 138) the following as the major factors to be taken into account in identifying market power, drawn primarily from Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 and from Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061: • the ability of a firm to raise prices above the supply cost (the minimum cost an efficient firm would incur in producing the produce) without rivals taking away customers in due time; • the extent to which the firm’s conduct in the market is constrained by that of competitors or potential competitors; • the market share of the firm, although this alone is not generally determinative of market power; • the existence of vertical integration, although this alone is not generally determinative of market power; and • the extent to which it is rational or possible for new entrants to enter the market – the extent of barriers to entry. However, the criteria for determining whether a corporation has market power are not fixed. There will be a wide variety of circumstances which may bear on the question of whether a corporation has a substantial degree of power in a market – some arising from within the market and some extraneous to it. [CCA.46.180]

Market power: absence of constraints

As a practical matter, market power exists when a participant can act in a manner that is unconstrained by its competitors and do so for a sustained period, although complete constraint is not necessary. Section 46(3C) provides that a corporation may have market power even though it does not have substantial control of the market and does not have absolute freedom from constraint by the conduct of competitors, suppliers or customers. Kaysen and Turner, in Antitrust Policy (1959) put the proposition as follows: A firm possesses market power when it can behave persistently in a manner different from the behaviour that a competitive market would enforce on a firm facing otherwise similar cost and demand conditions. In Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 200 (CLR) at 50,015 (ATPR), Dawson J quoted the above statement with approval and also said: The term “market power” is ordinarily taken to be a reference to the power to raise price by restricting output in a sustainable manner. … But market power has aspects other than influence upon the market

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

469

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.180]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.180]

price. It may be manifested by practices directed at excluding competition such as exclusive dealing, tying arrangements, predatory pricing or refusing to deal … The ability to engage persistently in these practices may be as indicative of market power as the ability to influence prices. In Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [67], the majority said: … market power means capacity to behave in a certain way (which might include setting prices, granting or refusing supply, arranging systems of distribution), persistently, free from the constraints of competition. In Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915, Gleeson CJ and Callinan J said: Power in a supplier ordinarily means the ability to put prices up, not down. But if a market is not competitive, and a firm puts prices down, seeking to eliminate a potential rival, in the expectation that it will thereafter be in a position to raise prices without competitive constraint, its ability to act in that manner may reflect the existence of market power. [CCA.46.200]

Market power: barriers to entry

The ultimate determinant in relation to the existence or absence of market power is barriers to entry: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925; Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061; Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Photo-Continental Pty Ltd v Sony (Aust) Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-372. As the High Court said in Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [67]: Barriers to entry into a market by competitors are a common reason for the existence of market power. They could exist, as in the present case, because of technological factors, or they might result, for example, from legislation which gives a statutory monopoly. In Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167, Lockhart and Gummow JJ expressed the point as follows (at 63 (FCR)): Market power is concerned with power which enables a corporation to behave independently of competition and of competitive forces in a relevant market. The primary consideration in determining market power must be taken to be whether there are barriers to entry into the relevant market … To what extent is it rational or possible for new entrants to enter the market? The term “barrier to entry” does not appear to have a settled meaning in economics, but the Tribunal has taken it to mean barriers that may be either structural, based on exogenously determined market characteristics, or endogenous, being the result of the incumbent’s strategic behaviour to deter entry: Re Chime Communications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 234 FLR 210; [2009] ACompT 2. See also [CCA.50.140]. Barriers to entry may arise in a variety of ways. For instance, economic circumstances which may make it unattractive, irrational or impossible for a new entrant to enter the market do not constitute a barrier to entry: ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715. In ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715 the following matters were considered by Heerey J in determining whether there were barriers to entry in the relevant market: • patents, trade marks or copyright which a new entrant may infringe; • levels of customer loyalty to particular established brands; • availability of skilled labour, raw materials, plant and equipment; • availability of suitable land on which to establish operations; • level of capital investment required; and • availability of commercial information.

470

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

[CCA.46.220] Market power: market share While lack of market share may be evidence of a lack of market power, having a high market share does not conclusively establish the existence of market power. The ease with which competitors may enter the market must also be considered, because the market share may be a short run phenomenon: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 189 (CLR) per Mason CJ and Wilson J. Therefore, the ultimate determinant of the existence or absence of market power is barriers to entry: see Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Photo-Continental Pty Ltd v Sony (Aust) Pty Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-372. Market share is, however, relevant for another purpose. Section 46(1AA) provides that a corporation that has a substantial market share is prohibited from supplying, or offering for supply, goods or services for a sustained period at below the relevant cost of supplying the goods or services, where the corporations purpose is to substantially damage or eliminate a competitor, substantially damage or eliminate competitors generally, a class of competitors or any particular competitor, or prevent or deter anyone from engaging in competitive conduct in any market. [CCA.46.240] Market power and profitability It cannot be concluded that, just because a corporation is not profitable, it lacks substantial market power: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. [CCA.46.260] Market power: submarkets Power held by a firm in a submarket may, in practical terms, be sufficiently substantial for the firm to have the requisite degree of power in a market for the purposes of s 46: Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 158; 104 ALR 633; [1992] ATPR 41-159 at 181 (FCR) per French J. However, Australian competition law does not recognise submarkets as such. They are merely an analytical tool to assist in determining the relevant effect in the market. See generally [CCA.4E.260]. [CCA.46.280] Market power: aggregating sources of power A corporation must itself have the requisite degree of market power before s 46 can be contravened. Although s 46(2) permits the market power of related corporations (as that term is defined in s 4A(5)) to be aggregated, a corporation cannot be liable under s 46 on the basis of a shared position of market power with an unrelated corporation: Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167. This does not, however, mean that power acquired through contracts, arrangements or understandings with others are irrelevant: s 46(3A). They may provide one of the sources of a corporation’s individual market power: Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167. Equally, while vertical integration does not necessarily indicate a substantial degree of market power, vertical integration is a common means for a corporation with market power to capitalise on that market power: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 190 (CLR) per Mason CJ and Wilson J. But note Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [47]. [CCA.46.300] Market power: arbitrary behaviour The fact that a corporation has conducted itself towards a competitor or customer (or a number of competitors or customers) in a manner that might be considered arbitrary or high-handed, does not itself establish the corporation has a substantial degree of market power: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

471

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46.300]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46 [CCA.46.320]

[CCA.46.320] Market power: financial strength

If the respondent exercises financial power, then that is not an exercise of market power. Financial power is not market power: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [115]. See also ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165. However, the ability of a participant to act without constraint because of its access to capital or the extent of its own financial resources, may be relevant in determining whether a corporation has market power and the degree of that power: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915; TPC v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 164; 124 ALR 685; [1994] ATPR 41-345. See also Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. [CCA.46.340]

Market power: recoupment as an indicia

There has been a debate over whether or not the ability to recoup losses after a competitor has been forced out of the market is a necessary indicia of use of market power. The suggestion has been that, if there is no possibility of recoupment, then the conduct is aggressive competition rather than a misuse of market power. In Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 Gleeson CJ and Callinan J said: While the possibility of recoupment is not legally essential to a finding of pricing behaviour in contravention of s 46, it may be of factual importance. The fact, … that BBM had no expectation of being in a position to charge supra-competitive prices even if Rocla and Budget left the market … was material to an evaluation of its conduct. The inability to raise prices above competitive levels reflected a lack of market strength. A finding that BBM expected to be in a position, at the end of the price war, to recoup its losses by charging prices above a competitive level may have assisted a conclusion that it had a substantial degree of market power, depending on the other evidence. However the position has been clarified in relation to misuse of market power claims involving predatory pricing. Section 46(1AAA) provides that a corporation misuses its market power if it supplies goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation, even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred. As this provision deals explicitly with predatory pricing only, the potential for, or absence of ability to, recoup remains relevant in misuse of market power cases not based on predatory pricing. [CCA.46.360]

Market power: loss of power

There is no black and white proposition that a monopolist facing uncertainty of some kind that goes to the source of its market power, whether from uncertainty about non renewal of contractual rights or otherwise, loses that market power once uncertainty arises. It is a question of degree. It is the extent of the vulnerability that matters. Determining whether or not a corporation has a substantial degree of market power during a period of uncertainty involves, at least in part, examining the extent of the vulnerability and the corporation’s perception of whether the uncertainty operated as a constraint on its ability to act without significant competitive constraint: ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165 (Greenwood J). [CCA.46.380]

Market power: effect of s 46(4)

Section 46(4) is an aid to the interpretation of the terms used in this section. Section 46(4)(a) makes it clear the references to power are references to market power and not any other type of power. Section 46(4)(c) is intended to limit the operation of s 46(1) to power in a relevant market as a supplier or acquirer of goods or services. The subsection also provides that, for the purposes of s 46(3), references to conduct in a market are references to conduct in a relevant market as a supplier or acquirer of goods or services.

472

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

See NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [115]. [CCA.46.400]

Concept: market

Market power is power in a market, so identifying the relevant markets is an important step in the process of determining whether the threshold requirement for the operation of this section is met. A market is the area of close competition between firms – the field of rivalry between them: see Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 at 190 (FLR); Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. For further analysis see: [CCA.4E.20]. Section 46(4)(b) provides that references in s 46 to a market refer to a market for goods or services. As to the terms “goods” and “services”, see s 4 and above, [CCA.4.340], [CCA.4.500]. In identifying the relevant market, it must be borne in mind that the objective is to discover the degree of the respondent’s market power. Defining the market and evaluating the degree of power in that market are part of the same process. It is for the sake of simplicity of analysis that the two are separated. After identifying the appropriate product level it is necessary to describe accurately the parameters of the market in which the respondent’s products compete: too narrow a description of the market will create the appearance of more market power than in fact exists; too broad a description will create the appearance of less market power than there is: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. [CCA.46.420] Concept: take advantage The “take advantage” requirement means that, in order to establish a breach of s 46, the applicant has to prove that the respondent used its market power (and not some other power). The section requires more than the co-existence of market power, conduct, and proscribed purpose: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. There must be a causal connection between the alleged conduct and the market power pleaded sufficient to sustain the allegation that the market power was used: Natwest Australia Bank Ltd v Boral Gerrard Strapping Systems Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 631; [1992] ATPR 41-196; General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 98; 117 ALR 135; [1993] ATPR 41-215. The term “take advantage” does not introduce any notion of predatory intent or morality. It means “use”: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925. There has been a debate over whether the test for determining the “take advantage” requirement is a “would have been likely to behave” in a competitive market, or “could have been likely to behave” test. Of course, a “could have behaved” test sets a lower bar than “would behave”, so the latter makes the section applicable in more circumstances than the “could behave” test. In Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 the court rejected a submission that determining the “take advantage” question by reference to hypotheses about how the corporation would have acted were flawed and said the real question was whether, without market power, the corporation could have acted as it did. In Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965 the majority rejected an ACCC submission that the Full Federal Court had been incorrect in applying a could have acted test, applying the court’s approach in Melway. However, the Parliament subsequently provided a measure of soft legislative guidance by the introduction of s 46(6A). That section provides that, in determining whether a corporation has taken advantage of market power, the court may have regard to whether it is likely that the corporation would have engaged in the conduct if it did not have a substantial degree of market power. That is not the only guidance the Parliament has given on this question. The section states that the court may also have regard to whether the corporation’s market power materially facilitiated the

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

473

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.420]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.420]

conduct, whether, in engaging in the conduct, the corporation relied on its market power, and whether the conduct was “otherwise related” to the corporation’s market power. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, withich introducted s 46(6A) stated: In Rural Press the High Court endorsed a “take advantage” test which inquires whether a corporation could have undertaken the conduct in question without possessing a substantial degree of market power. The Senate Inquiry considered that this test focuses on a corporation’s physical or business capacity to engage in conduct rather than its rationale or intent for doing so. The Inquiry found that the test appeared to result in a situation where corporations may use their market power to engage in proscribed conduct with impunity, so long as they could also engage in that conduct in the absence of market power. Another way of expressing the test, therefore, is whether, applying practical judgment, a profit maximising firm, operating in a workably competitive market, could profitably engage in the conduct, in a commercial sense, having regard to the business reasons identified by witnesses, assuming the firm is confronted with the practical circumstances in which it finds itself? This seems an appropriate way of considering the “would likely” test. It is based on the decision in the pre-s 46(6A) case, ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165 (Greenwood J). To ask how a firm would have behaved if it lacked a substantial degree of power in a market, for the purpose of making a judgment whether it is taking advantage of its market power, involves a process of economic analysis, but the cogency of the analysis may depend upon the assumptions that are thought to be required by s 46: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. The conduct of “taking advantage of” a thing is not identical with the conduct of protecting that thing. If a firm with market power has a purpose of protecting it, and a choice of methods by which to do so, one of which involves power distinct from the market power and one of which does not, choice of the method distinct from the market power will prevent a contravention of s 46(1) from occurring even if choice of the other method will entail it: Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965 at [51]. Many monopolisation or abuse of dominance cases involve withholding supply. In Australia, withholding supply will not amount to a use of market power unless the corporation, operating in a competitive market, would not stand by, without an effort to compete, and allow the applicant to secure supplies from a competitor: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 192 (CLR). Freedom from competitive constraint might make it possible, or easier, to refuse supply and, if it does, refusal to supply would constitute taking advantage of market power. But it does not follow that because a firm enjoys freedom from competitive constraint, and refuses to supply a particular person, there is a relevant connection between the freedom and the refusal – a use of market power. The presence of competitive constraints might be compatible with a similar refusal, especially if it is done to secure business advantages which would exist in a competitive environment: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [67]. It is dangerous to proceed too quickly from a finding about a corporation’s purpose to a conclusion that it has taken advantage of its market power, particularly when the purpose is found to be quite narrow: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. Although it may be appropriate to infer purpose from conduct, it is not necessarily appropriate to infer from a finding of purpose that a firm has taken advantage of its substantial degree of market power to achieve that purpose: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805; Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd v Clear Communications Ltd [1995] NZLR 385 at 402 (CLR); ACCC v

474

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215 at [1103]. For example, a corporation with substantial market power will not necessarily contravene s 46 by using its power to obtain a particular price: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 27 FCR 492; 100 ALR 125; [1991] ATPR 41-109 at 502 (FCR). [CCA.46.440]

Take advantage: exercising a statutory right

Section 46 will only be breached if the power being used is market power: s 46(4)(a). The section will not apply to a mere taking advantage of a statutory right. In Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752, the respondent sought tenders for the provision of towage services at the port of Bunbury. The applicant claimed that, for various reasons, by proposing to grant an exclusive licence for towage services at the port the respondent was in breach of s 46. French J said (at [124]): In my opinion … the exercise by it of a statutory power to licence the provision of towage services in the Port of Bunbury is not an exercise of market power but rather the discharge of a regulatory function conferred upon it by the legislature in the public interest. That said, the fact that the conduct of a statutory body is supported by statutory authority will not necessarily take it out of the scope of s 46. Without exploring the limits of the exempting characteristic it is sufficient in my opinion to say that the grant of a statutory licence under an express power granted by the Parliament is well within it. However, identifying whether a respondent is merely exercising a statutory right or is using market power is not an easy exercise: see NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. In RP Data Limited v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639 (Collier J), the court decided that the State, by witholding real estate title data from the applicant, was exercising market power, not statutory power. [CCA.46.460]

Take advantage: exercising a legal or property right

Whether or not the exercise of rights that a corporation has at law, such as the right to terminate a licence or franchise, will be a breach of s 46 merely because the corporation exercising those rights has market power, depends on the circumstances. The real issue is whether or not market power is being exercised, even if some legal right may also be involved. As Dawson J pointed out in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 202 (CLR), at 50,016 (ATPR): Nor is it helpful to characterise conduct … by determining whether it is the exercise of some contractual or other right … The fact that action is taken pursuant to the terms of a contract has no necessary bearing upon whether it is the exercise of market power in contravention of s 46. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [125], the High Court said: Further, to suggest that there is a distinction between taking advantage of market power and taking advantage of property rights is to suggest a false dichotomy, which lacks any basis in the language of s 46 … [P]roperty rights can be a source of market power attracting liability under s 46 and intellectual property rights are often a very clear source of market power. It appears clear, therefore, that although it can be said that reliance on contractual or other rights in good faith may not, on the particular facts of any given case, amount to a breach of s 46, the mere fact that the respondent is relying on such a right does not exclude the operation of s 46. See also Helicruise Air Services Pty Ltd v Rotorway Australia Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-510; Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165; Warman International Ltd v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 478; 6 IPR 578; 67 ALR 253; [1986] ATPR 40-714; Australasian Performing Right Assn Ltd v Ceridale Pty Ltd (1990) 97 ALR 497; 19 IPR 1;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

475

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.460]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.460]

[1991] ATPR 41-074; Williams v Papersave Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 80; 76 ALR 152; [1987] ATPR 40-818; Tri-Global (Aust) Pty Ltd v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Soc Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-119; [1992] ATPR 41-174. EXAMPLE • Plume v Federal Airports Corp [1997] ATPR 41-589. The court found that the respondent, in denying the applicant the right to operate a bus service from an airport, was not taking advantage of market power for the purpose of adversely affecting the applicant. It was giving effect to a licence it had granted to another operator for the orderly regulation of an important business activity and public service. • Regents Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 218; 42 IPR 421; [1998] ATPR 41-647. The court accepted that the applicant’s dealership had been cancelled because the dealer had not put sufficient effort into selling cars. The respondent’s purpose was found to be to promote competition and preserve competitiveness of the market. [CCA.46.480]

Take advantage – absence of competitive conditions

If a profit maximising firm operating in a workably competitive market could, in a commercial sense, profitably engage in the conduct in question having regard to the ordinary business rationale claimed to have prompted its conduct, the firm will not have used its market power if that conduct was made possible only by the absence of competitive conditions: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53; 78 ALJR 274; 203 ALR 217; [2003] ATPR 41-965; Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; [2009] ATPR 42-301. [CCA.46.500]

Take advantage: power in another market

Section 46(1) was amended in 2007 to provide that a corporation with power in a market may not use that power for a proscribed purpose in that market or any other market. That amendment was made to deal with the decision in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2002] FCAFC 213; (2002) 118 FCR 236; 193 ALR 399; [2002] ATPR 41-883, where the court suggested that, in order to come within the prohibition as then framed the relevant power had to be used in the market in which the corporation had the power. In what circumstances will s 46 be breached if a corporation with power in one market seeks to use that power to gain advantage in another market? In Victorian Egg Marketing Board v Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd (1978) 33 FLR 294; 20 ALR 129; [1978] ATPR 40-081, the Board had a virtual monopoly over the supply of eggs in Victoria. When a glut occurred in that market the Board negotiated to supply eggs to retailers who held around 25% of the retail market for eggs in the ACT at prices below those of the applicant. The applicant obtained an interlocutory injunction on the basis that the Board was using its power in the Victorian market to harm a competitor in the ACT market. [CCA.46.520]

Take advantage: financial resources

Financial strength is not market power. If a firm has market power, its financial resources might be part of the explanation of that power, but it is not market power. The financial ability to survive a price war is neither market power, nor is it a manifestation of characteristics that give market power, if, when the price war is over, the market is still highly competitive: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 per Gleeson CJ and Callinan J. See also NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [115]; Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Jul).

476

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

[CCA.46.540] Predatory pricing – selling below cost The term “predatory pricing” is not used in the Act. It is generally regarded as selling below cost with intent to destroy either competition or a specific competitor. The rationale for predatory pricing is said to be to maximise profits after competition has been driven from the market. This has led to consideration of whether pricing can be said to be predatory, as opposed to keenly competitive, if there is no prospect of the firm engaging in the practice recouping the “investment” it has made. Section 46(1AA) provides that corporations with a substantial market share may not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price less than their relevant cost for any of the purposes prohibited by the Act. The prohibited purposes are: eliminating or substantially damaging competitors generally, a class of competitors or a particular competitor, preventing a person, persons generally or a particular class of persons, entering a market, or preventing or deterring anyone from engaging in competitive conduct in a market. No question of the prospect of recoupment arises in this formulation of the prohibition. The assumption is that, if a corporation with a substantial market share engages in predatory pricing, as defined, that will not serve the objective of the Act to enhance the welfare of Australians. [CCA.46.560] Predatory pricing – concept: market shares Market share is generally recognised as an imperfect proxy for determining whether or not a corporation has market power, but use of market shares as a proxy is not without precedent. In the US, courts have been prepared to infer that a corporation with a substantial percentage of sales in a market has market power, because market power is generally regarded as difficult to establish in the context of litigation. In Graphic Products Distributors Inc v Itek Corp (1983) 717 F 2d 1560; [1983-2] Trade Cases 65,670 at 69,422 the approach taken by US courts was explained as follows: Market share is frequently used in litigation as a surrogate for market power for two reasons. First, market power is conceptually difficult to define in any given case. Second, its measurement requires sophisticated econometric analysis. Therefore, market power is not well suited to presentation in an adversary proceeding. As a consequence, a large market share is taken, in US antitrust cases, as sufficient to “create a genuine dispute over whether the defendant possessed a dangerous probability of successfully monopolizing a market”. US Anchor Manufacturing Inc v Rule Industries Inc (1993) 7 F 3d 986; [1993-2] Trade Cases 70,426 at 71,254. When, in the Australian context, will a corporation be regarded as having a substantial market share; a share of a market sufficient to enliven the prohibition? The only guidance s 46(1AA) provides is that the relevant market share must be substantial: see [CCA.46.80]. The proposition that, in order to enliven the prohibition, a corporation must have a “considerable, solid or big” market share provides little guidance on the question of which corporations will be at risk and which will not. US antitrust jurisprudence provides some possible guidance, although the High Court has said that we should look primarily to the text and structure of the CCA to determine the meaning of its terms, rather than other sources: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 per Gaudron, Gummow & Hayne JJ at [165]. In addition, in the US the purpose of the enquiry is to determine whether or not the court should find that the defendant had and used market power. That is not the case in Australia. The US Court of Appeals has consistently found that a market share of more than 50% is required: Bailey v Allgas Inc (2002) 284 F 3d 1237; [2002-1] Trade Cases 73,607; US Anchor Manufacturing Inc v Rule Industries Inc (1993) 7 F 3d 986; [1993-2] Trade Cases 70,426; Clift Food Stores Inc v Kroger Inc [1969] Trade Cases 72,923; Broadway Delivery Corp v United Parcel Service of America Inc (1981) 651 F 2d 122; [1981-1] Trade Cases 64,068. It is important to correctly identify the relevant market before trying to determine whether or not a corporation has the requisite market share. In US antitrust jurisprudence, where a monopolisation case

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

477

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46.560]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.560]

relies on market shares to establish market power, the courts require the plaintiff to establish a “well-defined relevant market”: Cornwell Quality Tools Co v CTS Co (1971) 446 F 2d 825; [1971] Trade Cases 73,620. [CCA.46.580] Predatory pricing – concept: a firm’s relevant cost The second element of the predatory pricing prohibition is that the respondent must have supplied, or offered to supply, goods or services at less than the “relevant cost” to the corporation. To what cost does this refer? For the purposes of predatory pricing, marginal cost is the logical cost measure because a principal objective of competition policy is to achieve efficient prices for consumers. However, the marginal cost of a particular product is not easy to determine. For that reason, US courts have tender to adopt average variable cost as the relevant measure, although not in all cases. In US v AMR Corp (2003) 335 F 3d 1109; [2003-2] Trade Cases 74,078 at 96,746 the US Court of Appeals observed that: In this circuit, we have spoken of both AVC and other marginal cost measures as relevant. … Because there may be times when courts need the flexibility to examine both AVC as well as other proxies for marginal cost in order to evaluate an alleged predatory pricing scheme, we again decline to dictate a definitive cost measure for all cases. Sole reliance on AVC as the appropriate measure of cost may obscure the nature of a particular predatory scheme … In Australia the question whether or not pricing was predatory arose in ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715 at [104], although not in the context of the prohibition currently under consideration. The allegation was that Boral had misused its market power by selling masonry products at less than “avoidable cost”. Heerey J described the term “avoidable cost” by use of the following example: Assume that to make an article a firm has to pay $6 for raw materials and incurs fixed costs of $4. Thus a sale for any price above $10 will return a profit. If the firm sells for $8, it will sell below cost and accordingly make a loss. But it will recover its raw materials costs and make a contribution to its fixed costs. So the firm is better off making the article than not making it. But if the price received is less than $6, the firm is worse off. It would be better not to make the article. In this example $6 is the avoidable cost, the cost that will be avoided by not making the article. The term variable cost is often used as a synonym for avoidable cost, and was in the present case. In strict economic theory there are differences, but they are not material for present purposes. [CCA.46.600] Predatory pricing – concept: a sustained period Whatever measure is chosen, a firm will not contravene the Act unless it has supplied, or offered for supply, the relevant goods or services at less than cost “for a sustained period”. How long that period might be is difficult to tell. Whatever may be decided in this regard, selling below cost for periods of short duration will not contravene the provision. Parliament’s intention was presumably to ensure that the prohibition did not operate against the interests of consumers by placing firms, such as airlines or supermarkets, that offered “specials” at risk of contravention for doing so. One of the Swanson Committee’s concerns with the original prohibition on price discrimination was that it limited price flexibility to the detriment of consumers: Trade Practices Act Review Committee, Report to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (AGPS, Canberra, 1976) para 7.21. [CCA.46.620] Predatory pricing – business justification Whether Australian courts choose average variable or avoidable costs as the relevant measure, sales below the selected cost level are not necessarily predatory. The logic in relation to predatory pricing is that, if a firm sells its products at a loss and there is no good business reason for doing so, it may be that the firm is doing so to drive competitors from the market. This hinges on whether or not the firm is actually selling at a loss and if so, whether there is a justifiable business reason for it doing so. As Gleeson CJ and Callinan J

478

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 46

pointed out when the High Court considered Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915, it is an oversimplification to say that, if a firm sells below avoidable cost, its conduct must therefore be predatory. Their Honours said: To conclude that, in the example just given, BBM would be better off not to make the article than to supply it at $6, may leave out of account many legitimate business considerations. First, as already noted, there were benefits to the wider Boral group, both tangible and intangible, from BBM continuing to supply CMP. Secondly, even limiting consideration to BBM, it could make business sense to bear short-term losses in the hope that market conditions would improve. Thirdly, the alternative considered in BBM’s strategic planning, as will appear, was to withdraw from the market. The costs involved in that are not taken into account in the comparison urged by the ACCC. The appropriate method of paying regard to so-called sunk or historic costs of investment is a fourth matter which does not here, but may, at some future time, call for consideration. It is not a contravention to supply goods or services at below the relevant cost. It is only a contravention if there is a proscribed purpose: see [CCA.46.700]. [CCA.46.640] Predatory pricing – evidence of misuse of market power The second aspect of predatory pricing is that it may be evidence of misuse of market power . If a corporation with a substantial degree of market power has engaged in predatory pricing, then that may be evidence of a breach of s 46(1), regardless of whether it also contravenes s 46(1AA). Not all reductions in price by corporations with a substantial degree of power in a market will be predatory. The difficulty is in discriminating between pricing that is competitive and pricing that is predatory. As Gleeson CJ and Callinan J said in Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915: Where the conduct that is alleged to contravene s 46 is price-cutting, the objective will ordinarily be to take business away from competitors. If the objective is achieved, competitors will necessarily be damaged. If it is achieved to a sufficient extent, one or more of them may be eliminated. That is inherent in the competitive process. The purpose of the statute is to promote competition; and successful competition is bound to cause damage to some competitors. It follows that, where the conduct alleged to contravene s 46 is competitive pricing, it is especially dangerous to proceed too quickly from a finding about purpose to a conclusion about taking advantage of market power. Indeed, in such a case, a process of reasoning that commences with a finding of a purpose of eliminating or damaging a competitor, and then draws the inference that a firm with that objective must have, and be exercising, a substantial degree of power in a market, is likely to be flawed. Firms do not need market power in order to put their prices down; and firms that engage in price-cutting, with or without market power, cause damage to their competitors. Where, as in the present case, a firm accused of contravening s 46 asserts that it is operating in an intensely competitive market, and that its pricing behaviour is explained by its response to the competitive environment, including the conduct of its customers, an observation that it intends to damage its competitors, and to do so to such a degree that one or more of them may leave the market, is not helpful in deciding whether the firm has, and is taking advantage of, a substantial degree of market power. Section 46(4A) provides that, for the purposes of determining whether a corporation has contravened s 46(1) the court may have regard to conduct of the corporation in supplying goods or services for a sustained period at less than the relevant cost to the corporation and the reasons it did so. There is a danger that the term “predatory pricing” may take on a life of its own, independent of the statute, and distract attention from the language of s 46. There is also a danger that principles relevant to the laws of other countries may be adopted uncritically and without regard to the context in which they were developed. The term “predatory pricing” does not appear in s 46(1) and there is nothing in s 46 which requires a distinction to be drawn between pricing below or above variable or avoidable cost: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 per Gleeson CJ and Callinan J.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

479

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46.640]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.640]

An adjustment of price by a corporation with a substantial degree of market power that only reflects, for instance, a change in cost of materials is not a contravention of s 46 even if the adjustment injures others, but the behaviour would be predatory if it is proven that the corporation charged an unreasonably low price with the intent to keep competitors out of the market: TPC v CSBP & Farmers Ltd (1980) 53 FLR 135; [1980] ATPR 40-151 (Fisher J). Whether or not a finding of predatory pricing under s 46(1AA) requires the applicant establish that the corporation is likely to recoup the losses it incurs has not been finally established, although the plain terms of the provision would suggest that it is not. As far as s 46(1) is concerned, proof of an opportunity for recoupment is explicitly dismissed in relation to predatory pricing to which that provision applies: s 46(1AAA). That provision was inserted in an attempt to deal with the High Court’s view that it is the ability to recoup losses because price-cutting has removed competition and allowed the firm with market power to charge supra-competitive prices that harms consumers. Treating recoupment as a fundamental element in determining a claim of predatory pricing provides a simple means of applying s 46 without affecting the object of protecting consumer interests: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915; see also Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Jul). While no pre-ordained and fixed categories as to the level of pricing or economic theory or practice of costing necessarily controls the drawing of the inference that a corporation has used its market power for a proscribed purpose, at least prior to the introduction of s 46(1AAA), a firm with market power that engaged in price cutting with a view to recoupment without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards was regarded as using its market power: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915; Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Jul); Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167 at 72 (FCR), at 40,307 (ATPR) per Lockhart and Gummow JJ. If such a firm reduces its prices, especially if it reduces them below variable cost, then it may be easy to attribute to the firm an anti-competitive objective, and to characterise its behaviour as predatory. But if one finds a firm that is operating in an intensely competitive environment, and a close examination of its pricing behaviour shows that it is responding to competitive pressure, then its conduct will bear a different character: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915 per Gleeson CJ and Callinan J. EXAMPLE • Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 235 (Jul). The dominant supplier of building insulation products in New Zealand responded to entry of a competitor selling a wool based product by offering its own wool based product on a 2 for 1 basis. In the circumstances the appellant was found not to have used its dominant position in the relevant market. • Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Comm [1999] FCA 452. The court accepted that the respondent reduced its prices for legitimate business reasons which had nothing to do with deterring the applicant from engaging in competitive conduct in any market. [CCA.46.660]

Selling below avoidable cost

The concept of “avoidable cost” was explained by Heerey J in ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318; (1999) 166 ALR 410; [1999] ATPR 41-715 at [108] as follows: Assume that to make an article a firm has to pay $6 for raw materials and incurs fixed costs of $4. Thus a sale for any price above $10 will return a profit. If the firm sells for $8, it will sell below cost and accordingly make a loss. But it will recover its raw materials costs and make a contribution to fixed

480

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

costs. So the firm is better off making the article than not making it. But if the price received is less than $6, the firm is worse off. It would be better not to make the article. In this example $6 is the avoidable cost. However, selling below avoidable cost, even for a prolonged period, does not necessarily mean that the firm has engaged in conduct in breach of s 46. There may be a rational business reason for the conduct: Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915. No pre-ordained or fixed categories of level of pricing necessarily controls the drawing of an inference that there has been a misuse of market power: Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43; 106 ALR 297; [1992] ATPR 41-167. [CCA.46.680]

Refusal to supply

The general rule is that suppliers are not obliged to supply everyone who seeks to order their goods. As Dr Stephen Corones points out in Competition Law in Australia (3rd ed, Lawbook Co., 2004), p 414: Economic efficiency is enhanced if suppliers are allowed the freedom to decide by whom and under what conditions their product will be sold. Section 46 is directed to promoting competition – not private interests. Therefore, if a corporation is otherwise entitled to decline to supply someone, it is not the function of the Act to dictate how that corporation should conduct its business: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. Even where market conditions are such that a supplier is relatively free from market constraint and the supplier refuses supply, this does not mean that a breach of s 46 has occurred. There needs to be a connection between the refusal and the market power. The court needs to consider whether the supplier might act in the same way even if there were competitive constraint in the market: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. However, if it can be established that the supplier has power in a market and that it uses that power for any of the purposes proscribed by s 46 then an action is sustainable. See, for example, NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. Where a party seeks an injunction to restrain termination of supply, that party will, prima facie, be required to pay any money owing or, if there is a dispute, to pay the amount into court in addition to giving the usual undertakings as to damages. In making the order, the court will have regard to the circumstances of the case to ensure that the court’s order does not work an injustice: Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd (1997) 78 FCR 132; 148 ALR 202; 38 IPR 531; [1997] ATPR 41-575; Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v ATC (1988) 15 ALD 479; 82 ALR 499. [CCA.46.700] Concept: purpose Section 46 will only be breached if the corporation in question has used its market power for one of the proscribed purposes, thereby undermining competition: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 191 (CLR) per Mason CJ and Wilson J. “Purpose” in s 46 refers simply to an intention to achieve a particular result: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 per Toohey J; Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 at [31] (ATPR). Purpose is not to be confused with motive; the latter being the reason for seeking an end rather than the effect sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; 215 CLR 563; [2003] ATPR 41-943. See also General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164; 117

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

481

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.700]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.700]

ALR 629; [1993] ATPR 41-274 in which the court expressed the view that the term meant “the effect which it is sought to achieve – the end in view” or “the result aimed at” and carries with it “the notion of an intent to achieve the result”. In the USA, where the test for monopolization is different (see [CCA.46.20]) it has been said that, where a corporation has substantial market power, its activities are examined through a special lens and consequently, behaviour that might otherwise not be of concern to the antitrust laws can take on exclusionary connotations when practiced by a monopolist: Eastman Kodak Co v Image Technical Services Inc 504 US 451 (1992) at 488: (Scalia J). In the USA, the prosecutor is required to prove “the wilful acquisition or maintenance of ... [market power] as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident”: United States v Grinnell Corp 384 US 563 (1966) at 570. However, that does not mean a subjective purpose is required. As the US Supreme Court said, to require “any specific intent makes a mockery of [the law], for no monopolist monopolizes unconscious of what he is doing”: Verizon Communications Inc v Trinko [2004-1] Trade Cases 74,241 at 98,008. However, in Australia the plain words of the section do not permit that approach. The requirement is that the applicant must prove the purpose for which the corporation used its market power, whatever impression the “special lens” might give. For instance, the adoption by a manufacturer that has a substantial degree of market power, of a system of distribution involving vertical constraints, does not immediately lead to the necessary conclusion that the manufacturer has an anti-competitive purpose. When the state of the market is considered the purpose may be pro-competitive: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. It is a firm’s purpose, not the effect of its conduct, that is at the centre of any claimed contravention.“Purpose:”, is a subjective concept: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 19 IPR 323; 97 ALR 513; applied recently in ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] ATPR 42-514; (2015) 323 ALR 429; [2015] FCA 113 (currently on appeal). Purpose can, however, be based on inferences drawn around the firm’s (not some hypothetical bystander) conduct in all of the circumstances, on a balance of probabilities: s 46(7); Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] ATPR 41-947; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) ATPR 41-947 per Wilcox, French and Gyles JJ. The factors which influence a party to act in a particular way will be relevant to cast light on that behaviour and may bring the behaviour within s 46 notwithstanding that, if purely objective criteria were considered, the behaviour might appear not to breach the section. The thinking behind behaviour may clarify what the behaviour was designed to achieve and was likely to achieve. However, ordinarily these matters can be inferred from the terms of the arrangement made, the way in which it was implemented and from the existence or absence of monopoly-type conduct such as predatory pricing: General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra (1993) 45 FCR 164; 117 ALR 629; [1993] ATPR 41-274. While the best evidence of purpose might be the statements made by that person in the witness box, the court will treat with caution evidence that is ex post facto and self-serving. Such statements must be tested closely and received with the greatest caution: Pascoe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 30 ALJR 402 at 403 (ALJR); ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069; (1990) 97 ALR 513; R v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387; [1911] HCA 73 (Issacs CJ). See also ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215 at [1034] (ATPR (Digest); [2001] FCA 1861. In ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069, a Full Court decided that, notwithstanding the evidence of experienced executives that all they were doing was exercising intellectual property rights for the best price the market would bear, the conduct could not be characterised “simply as the exercise or exploitation in good faith of legal rights … to the exclusion of the taking advantage of a substantial degree of power in a market”.

482

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

Compare the result in ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 113 in which the trial judge decided that the respondent had used its market power, but had not done so for a proscribed purpose. A purpose specified in s 46 need not be the only purpose to attract the operation of the section: s 4F(b). It need only be a substantial purpose: Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581; [1987] ATPR 40-809; ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [20003] ATPR 41-935. It should be noted, however, that s 4F refers to engaging in conduct for a particular purpose, whereas s 46 refers to taking advantage of market power for a particular purpose. The nexus between the two provisions is presumably provided by s 4(2)(a). Section 46 does not permit the drawing of a distinction between short-term anti-competitive purposes and long-term pro-competitive objectives and does not permit the former to be nullified or excused by the latter: NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90; [2004] ATPR 42-021 at [137]; (2014) 210 ALR 312; [2004] HCA 48. [CCA.46.720]

Damaging a competitor

One of the proscribed purposes is eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor; but who is to be regarded as a competitor? In RP Data Ltd v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639, Collier J noted that the term “competitor” is not defined in the Act. Her Honour had to decide whether the applicant and the respondent were “rivals” in the relevant market. She noted that the activities of the applicant and the respondent had been at different points on an economic continuum, with different product offerings, different levels of sophistication of products, different client bases, and minimal overlap. Nevertheless, Her honour concluded that there was a “commonality in the activities” of the applicant and the respondent sufficient for her to assume that the applicant was a competitor of the respondent in the relevant market. See by analogy [CCA.4D.80]. [CCA.46.740] Responsibility for employees and agents Conduct engaged in on behalf of a corporation by any director, servant or agent within the scope of that person’s actual or apparent authority, or by any other person at the direction or with the express or implied consent or agreement of a director, servant or agent acting within the scope of that person’s actual or apparent authority, is deemed to be conduct engaged in by the corporation: s 84(2). In addition, s 84(1) provides that where for the purposes, inter alia, of s 46 it is necessary to establish the state of mind of a corporation, it is sufficient to prove that a director, servant or agent acting within the scope of that person’s actual or apparent authority had that state of mind. [CCA.46.760] Expert evidence The primary task of the court is to apply the words of the Act to the facts found on the evidence before it. The words in s 46 involve some economic concepts and the application of the Act to the facts of a particular case may be informed by economic evidence or argument. But it is the language of the Act which defines the court’s task. To the extent that the statutory language conflicts with economic theory, the court is bound to apply the Act: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. [CCA.46.780] Related bodies corporate If two or more related bodies corporate have a substantial degree of market power between them, then each body corporate will be deemed to have that degree of market power: s 46(2). For a case in which this was found ACCC v Rural Press Ltd [2001] FCA 116; [2001] ATPR 41-804. [CCA.46.800] Burden of proof Although a contravention must be established on the balance of probabilities, when it comes to assessment of whether or not the firm has used market power courts have used language suggesting a somewhat stricter test. In Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989)

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

483

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.800]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.800]

167 CLR 177, Mason CJ and Wilson J asked whether it was “highly unlikely” that BHP would stand by and not compete. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; the majority asked whether it would be “very unlikely” that the firm would have been able to stand by if operating in a competitive market: see also ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165 in which Greenwood J applied that approach, asking whether it would have been very unlikely or highly unlikely that, in a workably competitive market, the respondent would have acted as it did. [CCA.46.820]

Injunctions

An injunction restraining a corporation found to have breached s 46 cannot be expressed in broad general terms. It must be expressed in terms that do not leave unclear what conduct will expose the respondent to a breach of the court’s order: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805. [CCA.46.840]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 in the case of a corporation, of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A) at [CCA.76.20]. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. [CCA.46.860]

Exemptions

A corporation is not to be taken to contravene s 46 by reason only that it acquires plant or equipment: s 46(5). An acquisition of plant or equipment may, however, if it places the acquirer in a position to control or dominate a market, come within s 50. Section 46 also does not apply in relation to conduct coming within s 45, 45B, 47 or 50 if that conduct is covered by an authorisation or is properly the subject of a notification and a notification has been lodged. [CCA.46.880]

Pt IIIA and s 46

Pt IIIA provides a statutory regime for third party access to essential facilities – essentially infrastructure that has monopoly characteristics to which access should be provided in the national interest: see [1.P44G.5]. In the USA courts had established an essential facilities doctrine as part of the development of jurisprudence on the Sherman Act prohibition on monopolisation, on which s 46 had originally been based. However, a full Federal Court in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd rejected the notion that the essential facilities doctrine had a place in the interpretation of s 46 and the matter was not dealt with when the case was appealed to the High Court: see [1.PtIIIA.5]. Pt IIIA was enacted to deal with the matter. However, that does not mean that s 46 is irrelevant in relation to all third party access claims. Section 44ZZNA provides that Pt IIIA is to have no effect on the operation of Pt IV or Pt VII. This means that the existence of a right to have services declared under Pt IIIA can have no effect on the operation of s 46. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021 [at 85] the High Court observed that, “provided the notoriously difficult task of satisfying the criteria of liability can be carried out, s 46 can be used to create access regimes”. ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261 and ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1489 provide two examples. [CCA.46.900] Cases: refusal to buy • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149; (2003) 129 FCR 339; 198 ALR 657; [2003] ATPR 41-935. The respondent was found to have used its market power for the

484

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

purpose of harming a competing retailer when it gave effect to a policy of not stocking bread from manufacturers who gave competing supermarkets a better price than they gave the respondent. [CCA.46.920]

Cases: refusal to supply

There has been a number of cases in which cancellation of distribution agreements or refusals to supply have been challenged under s 46. They include: • ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1489. The respondent admitted, for the purposes of the proceedings only, that it took advantage of its substantial degree of market power in the market for ticketing and related services in relation to live entertainment events for the substantial purpose of deterring or preventing competition from a competing ticketing supplier. Ticketek had refused to distribute tickets for Lastix, whose business was to sell discount tickets, where the Lastix price was lower than the Ticketek price for the event being promoted. Penalties totalling $2.5 million imposed. • ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261. The respondent supplied non-cash payment systems to taxis. At the relevant time 95% of taxis in Australia used its system. The respondent was found to have misused its market power when it constructively refused to allow a competing supplier of electronic payment systems to process Cabcharge cards. • RP Data Limited v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639. In refusing to continue to supply bulk real estate title data to the applicant, the respondent the court concluded that the function of doing so was in the course of the State carrying on a business, that the State had power in the relevant market, and that it had used that power, but concluded that the State had not used that power for one of the proscribed purposes set out in s 46. • NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; (2004) 219 CLR 90; 79 ALJR 1; 210 ALR 312; [2004] ATPR 42-021. Refusal by a Northern Territory electricity authority to give access to its infrastructure, required by the applicant in order to supply electricity, constituted the exercise of a substantial degree of market power within the meaning of s 46 and the authority’s actions were in breach of that section. • Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. The appellants supplied compact discs in Australia. They operated in an oligopolistic market with market share of less than 20% each and were unable to fix prices in the overall market above the competitive level. They were found not to have substantial power in the wholesale market for recorded music in Australia when they attempted to combat imported compact discs by reviewing their trading policies and only supplying compact discs to stores that did not stock parallel import compact discs. • Kadkhudayan v WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd [2001] FCA 645; [2001] ATPR 41-822. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent had misused market power when it had decided not to continue to supply the applicant with cigarettes. [CCA.46.940] Cases: predatory pricing • ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261. The respondent was held to have engaged in predatory pricing when it acquired taxi meters at a cost of $250 each, but supplied a large number to taxis either free of charge or for $100 each, funding its losses from profits made from its payment processing systems. • ACCC v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [2005] FCA 1900; [2006] ATPR 42-098. The respondent consented to findings that it had misused its power in the market for supply of passenger and vehicle ferry services between the mainland and a Queensland island by dropping its prices to levels less than the cost of wages and fuel to drive out a competitor. Penalties totalling $900,000 imposed by consent, but said by the court to be lower than warranted.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

485

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.940]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46

[CCA.46.940] • Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 5; (2003) 215 CLR 374; 77 ALJR 623; 195 ALR 609; [2003] ATPR 41-915. The appellant successfully defended a claim by the ACCC that it had breached s 46 by selling products at below avoidable cost. The respondent was found not to have a substantial degree of power in the relevant market (the market for concrete masonry products in Melbourne). • Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Comm [1999] FCA 452. The applicant failed to establish that, in reducing freight rates on a particular rail corridor, the respondent breached s 46.

[CCA.46.960] Cases: tenders • ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 141; (2008) 170 FCR 16; 249 ALR 674. The respondent had been the sole Australian manufacturer of sterile fluids since 1992 and the dominant, and nearly exclusive, supplier of sterile fluids since that time. Sterile fluids were an essential product. The respondent was found to have misused its power in the market for sterile fluids tendered to State and Territory health departments for use in public hospitals when it tendered supply sterile fluids and other fluids on an item-by-item basis at a high price but on a bundled basis at a lower price. The price differential between its item-by-item prices and its bundled price was substantial. • Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752. The respondent sought tenders for the provision of towage services at the port of Bunbury. The applicant claimed that, for various reasons, by proposing to grant an exclusive licence for towage services at the port the respondent was in breach of s 46. The application failed because the court held that the respondent was fulfilling a statutory function rather than exercising market power. [CCA.46.980] Cases: other • ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 113. The respondent, facing the imminent end of its patent in relation to a number of its drugs, including its atorvastatin product, Lipitor, required pharmacies to deal direct with it and introduced a “rebate” scheme designed to ensure that, once the patents expired, pharmacies took substantial quantities of its generic atorvastatin rather than the products of generic manufacturers. Although the court found that the respondent had power in the market for the supply of a drug, atorvastatin, and that it had used that power, the court decided that it had not done so for the purpose of deterring or preventing competitors. The ACCC has appealed. • ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909; (2013) 310 ALR 165; ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 148. The respondent and a related corporation were found to have market power in a market for concreted grade flyash in South East Queensland, but not to have used that power in entering a contract for supply of flyash. • ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261. The respondent was found to have used its power in the market for processing credit card payments in taxis to exclude a competitor payment system and engage in predatory pricing in the supply of terminals to taxis.Penalties totalling $14 million imposed. • Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2009] FCAFC 166; (2009) 182 FCR 160; 262 ALR 160. The respondents’ business was found to have had a substantial degree of power in the retail pay television market, but the respondents were found not to have used that power for a proscribed purpose because there was a commercial rationale for the action taken and the relevant test is whether, if there had been no market power, the respondents could have done what they were said to have done.

486

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46

• ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 128; (2006) 153 FCR 574; 22 ALR 627; [2006] ATPR 42-128. This case involved allegations of misuse of market power in relation to the supply of medical products to State and Territory health authorities for use in public hospitals. The full court dismissed the claims because it concluded that the relevant conduct was covered by Crown immunity. At first instance the court decided that the respondent’s conduct would have breached s 46 were it not for derivative immunity: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 581; [2005] ATPR 42-066. The High Court subsequently decided that derivative immunity did not apply and remitted the matter back to the Federal Court for decision on the s 46 point: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 38; (2007) 232 CLR 1; 81 ALJR 1622; 237 ALR 512; [2007] ATPR 42-172. For the ultimate outcome, see [CCA.46.960]. • Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. The applicant failed to prove that the Institute had misused any market power when it changed its training requirements in a manner that adversely affected the applicant as a training provider. The change did not involve a use of market power and in any event the Institute did not have any of the proscribed purposes. [CCA.46.1000]

Further reading

Predatory pricing RV Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012) paras 9.120 - 9.170; Pleatsikas, “An Economic Interpretation of recent American and Australian Judicial Decisions on Predatory Pricing” (2003) 11 TPLJ 12; Smith & Round, “Section 46: A Strategic Analysis of Boral” (2002) 30 ABLR 202; Edwards, “The Perennial Problem of Predatory Pricing” (2002) 30 ABLR 170; Seah, “Fair Competition or Unfair Predation: Identifying the Misuse of Market Power Under Section 46” (2001) 9 TPLJ 236; Blair & Harrison, “Airline Price Wars: Competition or Predation” (1999) 44 Antitrust Bulletin 489; Sceales, “Predatory Pricing Revisited” (1998) 6 TPLJ 142; Hanks & Williams, “Implications of the Decision of the High Court in Queensland Wire” (1990) 17 Melbourne University Law Review 437. Refusal to deal Edwards, “Melway – a TCE Perspective” (2002) 10 TPLJ 77; Marshall, “Refusals to Supply Under Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act: Misuse of Market Power or Legitimate Business Conduct?” (1996) 8 Bond Law Review 182; Nagarajan, “The Regulation of Predatory Pricing within Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974” (1990) 18 ABLR 293. Cases & Enforcement Matthiesson, “How Will Enforcement of Section 46 of the CCA Change under the Full Harper?” (2016) AJCCL 307; Coops, “A Fly in the Ointment for the ACCC? Implications of the Cement Australia Decision for the Interpretation of Section 46” (2015) 23 AJCCL 83; Griggs and Hardy, “ACCC v Boral – the High Court Awaits Another Section 46 Case!” (2001) 9 TPLJ 201; Brock, “Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act – Has the High Court Made a ‘u-turn’ on ‘taking advantage’?” (2005) 33 ABLR 327; Zumbo, “The High Court’s Rural Press Decision – the End of Section 46 as a Deterrent Against Abuses of Market Power?” (2004) 12 TPLJ 126. General Miller, Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012) Ch 9; Miller, “‘The Ongoing Australian Struggle with Misuse of Market Power’” (2016) 24 AJCCL 242; McLachlan, “Margin Squeezes as a Misuse of Market Power” (2016) AJCCL 279; Quo, “Unilateral Conduct and the Role of the Purpose Test in Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)” (2016) AJCCL114; ;Stewart, “Contrary to fact: Competition, Market Power, and the Use and Abuse of the Counterfactual Test in s 46” (2015) 42 ABLR 6; Laman and Nehme, “Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act: The Need for Change” (2014) AJCCL 112; Fishman, “Australian Competition Law Still Trips over Barriers to Entry” (2013) 21 ALCCL 89; Stewart, “Taking Advantage of Market Power in Section 46 of the Trade Practices

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

487

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46.1000]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46A

[CCA.46.1000]

Act 1974 (Cth)” (2005) 33 ABLR 343; Henrick and Penhallurick, “Most Favoured Nation Clauses – Bane or Boon?” (2004) 12 TPLJ 78; Salop, “The First Principles Approach to Anti-trust, Kodak and Anti-trust at the Millennium” (2002) 68 Anti-Trust Law Journal 187; Pengilley, “Misuse of Market Power – The Unbearable Uncertainties Facing Australian Management” (2000) 8 TPLJ 56; Rose, “The ACCC and the Market Power of Oil Majors” (1999) 7 TPLJ 17; Stewarts, “The Economics and Law of Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act” (1998) 26 ABLR 111; Hardy, “Misuse of Market Power – Purpose or Effect?” (1997) 5 TPLJ 114; Pengilley, “Misuse of Market Power – Future Problems” (1994) 2 TPLJ 27; O’Bryan, “Section 46: Law or Economics?” (1993) 1 Competition & Consumer Law Journal 64. 46A Misuse of market power—corporation with substantial degree of power in trans-Tasman market (1) [Definitions] In this section: conduct, in relation to a market, means conduct in the market either as a supplier or acquirer of goods or services in the market. impact market means a market in Australia that is not a market exclusively for services. market power, in relation to a market, means market power in the market either as a supplier or acquirer of goods or services in the market. trans-Tasman market means a market in Australia, New Zealand or Australia and New Zealand for goods or services. (2) [Trans-Tasman markets] A corporation that has a substantial degree of market power in a trans-Tasman market must not take advantage of that power for the purpose of: (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation, or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation, in an impact market; or (b) preventing the entry of a person into an impact market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in an impact market. (2A) [References to competitors and persons] For the purposes of subsection (2): (a) the reference in paragraph (2)(a) to a competitor includes a reference to competitors generally, or to a particular class or classes of competitors; and (b) the reference in paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) to a person includes a reference to persons generally, or to a particular class or classes of persons. [Subs (2A) insrt Act 222 of 1992, s 5]

(3) [Market power in trans-Tasman markets] If: (a)

a body corporate that is related to a corporation has, or 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is related to the one corporation together have, a substantial degree of market power in a trans-Tasman market; or (b) a corporation and a body corporate that is, or a corporation and 2 or more bodies corporate each of which is, related to the corporation, together have a substantial degree of market power in a trans-Tasman market; the corporation is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have a substantial degree of market power in the trans-Tasman market.

488

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 46A

(4) [Determining corporation’s market power in trans-Tasman market] In determining for the purposes of this section the degree of market power that a body corporate or bodies corporate has or have in a trans-Tasman market, the Federal Court is to have regard to the extent to which the conduct of the body corporate or of any of those bodies corporate, in the trans-Tasman market is constrained by the conduct of: (a) competitors, or potential competitors, of the body corporate, or of any of those bodies corporate, in the trans-Tasman market; or (b) persons to whom or from whom the body corporate, or any of those bodies corporate, supplies or acquires goods or services in the trans-Tasman market. (5) [Where subs (2) not contravened] Without extending by implication the meaning of subsection (2), a corporation is not taken to contravene that subsection merely because it acquires plant or equipment. (6) [Clearances or authorisations] This section does not prevent a corporation from engaging in conduct that does not constitute a contravention of any of the following sections, namely, sections 45, 45B, 47, 49 and 50, because an authorisation or clearance is in force or because of the operation of subsection 45(8A) or section 93. [Subs (6) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 6; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 3 item 4; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(7) [Deemed to have taken advantage where purpose ascertainable by inference from conduct or from other relevant circumstances] Without limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its market power for a purpose referred to in subsection (2) even though, after all the evidence has been considered, the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. (8) [Application to New Zealand corporations] It is the intention of the Parliament that this section, and the provisions of Parts VI and XII so far as they relate to a contravention of this section, should apply to New Zealand and New Zealand Crown corporations to the same extent, and in the same way, as they respectively apply under section 2A to the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth. (9) [Foreign States Immunities Act] Subsection (8) has effect despite section 9 of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985. [S 46A am Act 131 of 2006; Act 222 of 1992; insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 8]

SECTION 46A COMMENTARY Outline ........................................................................................................................................... [CCA.46A.20] Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................... [CCA.46A.40] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.46A.60]

[CCA.46A.20]

Outline

Section 46A prohibits misuse of market power in any market in Australia, New Zealand or Australia and New Zealand. The nature of the prohibition in this section is the same as in s 46. The annotations on terms used in s 46 are of equal application to this section. Like s 46, this section does not apply to dual listed company arrangements after 1 January 2007 when s 49 came into effect. The section applies to New Zealand and to New Zealand Crown corporations in the same manner as it applies to the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities under s 2A: s 46A(8).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

489

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.46A.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 46B

[CCA.46A.20]

[CCA.46A.40]

Proposals for Change

On 31 March 2015, the government released the final report of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review). The Panel recommended that Australia and New Zealand reconsider s 46A to determine appropriate simplifications, amendments or removal of the provision and its NZ equivalent. [CCA.46A.60]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 in the case of a corporation, of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A) at [CCA.76.20]. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. 46B

No immunity from jurisdiction in relation to certain New Zealand laws

(1) [No immunity to Commerce Act 1986 of New Zealand] It is hereby declared, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and their authorities, are not immune, and may not claim immunity, from the jurisdiction of the courts of Australia and New Zealand in relation to matters arising under sections 36A, 98H and 99A of the Commerce Act 1986 of New Zealand. (2) [Application] This section applies in and outside Australia. [S 46B insrt Act 70 of 1990, s 8]

SECTION 46B COMMENTARY [CCA.46B.20]

Outline

This section makes it clear that the Commonwealth and each Australian State and Territory, and their respective authorities, are not immune from the application of certain sections of the New Zealand Commerce Act 1986. The relevant provisions of that Act provide: 36A. Taking advantage of market power in trans-Tasman markets (1) Nothing in this section applies to any practice or conduct to which this Part applies that has been authorised under Part 5. (2) A person must not, for any of the purposes specified in subsection (3), take advantage of the person’s substantial degree of power (if any) – (a) in a market; or (b) in a market in Australia; or (c) in a market in New Zealand and Australia. (3) The purposes are as follows: (a) restricting the entry of a person into a market that is not a market exclusively for services: (b) preventing or deterring a person from engaging in competitive conduct in a market that is not a market exclusively for services: (c) eliminating a person from a market that is not a market exclusively for services. (4) For the purposes of this section, a person does not take advantage of a substantial degree of power in a market by reason only that the person seeks to enforce –

490

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 47

(a) a statutory intellectual property right, within the meaning of section 45(2), in New Zealand; (b) a statutory intellectual property right in Australia. (5) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a person includes 2 or more persons that are interconnected. 98H. Supply of information and documents in relation to section 36A (1) Where the Commission considers it necessary or desirable for the purposes of carrying out its functions and exercising its powers under this Act in relation to section 36A of the Act, the Commission may by notice in writing served on any person who is ordinarily resident in Australia or who carries on business in Australia, require that person – (a) To furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a director or competent servant or agent of the body corporate, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any information or class of information specified in the notice; or (b) To produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf in accordance with the notice, any document or class of documents specified in the notice. (2) A person who is required to furnish information or a class of information or produce any document or class of documents to the Commission pursuant to this section complies with this section if that person furnishes the information or that class of information or produces the document or that class of documents to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in accordance with the Trade Practices Act 1974. 99A. Commission may receive information and documents on behalf of Australian Trade Practices Commission (1) Where the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission requires any person resident or carrying on business in New Zealand to furnish any information or any class of information or produce any document or class of documents to it pursuant to section 155A of the Trade Practices Act 1974, the information or class of information may be furnished or the document or class of documents may be produced to the Commission for transmission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2) The Commission shall deliver the information or class of information furnished or the document or class of documents produced to it to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as soon as practicable. (3) Every person who (a) Refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement referred to in subsection (1) of this section; or (b) In purported compliance with such a requirement, furnishes information or produces a document knowing it to be false or misleading – commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 in the case of an individual, or $30,000 in the case of a body corporate. 47

Exclusive dealing

(1) [Prohibition against exclusive dealing] Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in the practice of exclusive dealing.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

491

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.46B.20]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47 (2) [Where corporation engages in exclusive dealing] A corporation engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation: (a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services; (b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or (c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the corporation; on the condition that the person to whom the corporation supplies, or offers or proposes to supply, the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate: (d) will not, or will not except to a limited extent, acquire goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; (e) will not, or will not except to a limited extent, re-supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or (f) in the case where the corporation supplies or would supply goods or services, will not re-supply the goods or services to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, re-supply the goods or services: (i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places. [Subs (2) am Act 88 of 1995, s 13]

(3) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses: (a) to supply goods or services to a person; (b) to supply goods or services to a person at a particular price; or (c) to give or allow a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services to a person; for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate: (d) has acquired, or has not agreed not to acquire, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; (e) has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or (f) has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation to any person, or has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation: (i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places. [Subs (3) am Act 88 of 1995, s 13]

(4) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation: (a) acquires, or offers to acquire, goods or services; or

492

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 47

(b) acquires, or offers to acquire, goods or services at a particular price; on the condition that the person from whom the corporation acquires or offers to acquire the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate will not supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description: (c) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (d) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places. (5) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses: (a) to acquire goods or services from a person; or (b) to acquire goods or services at a particular price from a person; for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate has supplied, or has not agreed not to supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description: (c) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (d) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places. (6) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation: (a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services; (b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or (c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the corporation; on the condition that the person to whom the corporation supplies or offers or proposes to supply the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate will acquire goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person not being a body corporate related to the corporation. [Subs (6) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 7 item 30; Act 206 of 1978, s 9]

(7) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses: (a) to supply goods or services to a person; (b) to supply goods or services at a particular price to a person; or (c) to give or allow a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply of goods or services to a person; for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person not being a body corporate related to the corporation. [Subs (7) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 7 item 30; Act 206 of 1978, s 9]

(8) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation grants or renews, or makes it known that it will not exercise a power or right to terminate, a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building on the condition that another party to the lease or licence or, if

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

493

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47 that other party is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate: (a) will not, or will not except to a limited extent: (i) acquire goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or (ii) re-supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; (b) will not supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description: (i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places; or (c) will acquire goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person not being a body corporate related to the corporation. [Subs (8) am Act 88 of 1995, s 13]

(9) [Additional instances of exclusive dealing] A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses to grant or renew, or exercises a power or right to terminate, a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building for the reason that another party to the lease or licence or, if that other party is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate: (a) has acquired, or has not agreed not to acquire, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; (b) has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; (c) has supplied goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description: (i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places; or (d) has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person not being a body corporate related to the corporation. [Subs (9) am Act 88 of 1995, s 13]

(10) [Where subs (1) does not apply] Subsection (1) does not apply to the practice of exclusive dealing constituted by a corporation engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) or paragraph (8)(a) or (b) or (9)(a), (b) or (c) unless: (a) the engaging by the corporation in that conduct has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or (b) the engaging by the corporation in that conduct, and the engaging by the corporation, or by a body corporate related to the corporation, in other conduct of the same or a similar kind, together have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition.

494

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 47

(10A) [Subsection (1) does not apply if notice given] Subsection (1) does not apply to a corporation engaging in conduct described in subsection (6) or (7) or paragraph (8)(c) or (9)(d) if: (a) the corporation has given the Commission a notice under subsection 93(1) describing the conduct; and (b) the notice is in force under section 93. [Subs (10A) insrt Act 88 of 1995, s 13]

(11) [Conduct by a registered charity] Subsections (8) and (9) do not apply with respect to: (a) conduct engaged in: (i) by a registered charity; and (ii) for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that registered charity; or (b) conduct engaged in in pursuance of a legally enforceable requirement made by a registered charity, being a requirement made for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that registered charity. [Subs (11) am Act 169 of 2012, s 3 and Sch 2 item 163, with effect from 3 Dec 2012]

(12) [Subsection (1) does not apply to related bodies corporate] Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to any conduct engaged in by a body corporate by way of restricting dealings by another body corporate if those bodies corporate are related to each other. (13) [References to condition; competition] In this section: (a) a reference to a condition shall be read as a reference to any condition, whether direct or indirect and whether having legal or equitable force or not, and includes a reference to a condition the existence or nature of which is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of persons or from other relevant circumstances; (b) a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which a provision of this section other than subsection (8) or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which: (i) the corporation engaging in the conduct or any body corporate related to that corporation; or (ii) any person whose business dealings are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct or, if that person is a body corporate, any body corporate related to that body corporate; supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services; and (c) a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which subsection (8) or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which the corporation engaging in the conduct or any other corporation the business dealings of which are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct, or any body corporate related to either of those corporations, supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. [S 47 am Act 169 of 2012; Act 131 of 2006; Act 88 of 1995; Act 206 of 1978; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 25; am Act 88 of 1976]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

495

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.20]

SECTION 47 COMMENTARY Context ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.47.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.40] Summary .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.60] Concept: acquire directly or indirectly .............................................................................................. [CCA.47.80] Concept: body corporate ............................................................................................................... [CCA.47.100] Concept: on condition that ............................................................................................................. [CCA.47.120] Concept: supply ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.47.140] Concept: services .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.160] Concept: goods or services of a particular kind ............................................................................ [CCA.47.180] Concepts: trade or commerce ....................................................................................................... [CCA.47.200] Concept: another person ............................................................................................................... [CCA.47.220] Concept: to a limited extent ........................................................................................................... [CCA.47.240] Concept: effect on competition ...................................................................................................... [CCA.47.260] Concept: market ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.47.280] Third line forcing – overview .......................................................................................................... [CCA.47.300] Third line forcing – legislative history ............................................................................................ [CCA.47.320] Third line forcing – bundled services ............................................................................................. [CCA.47.340] Concept: religious, charitable and public benevolent institutions .................................................. [CCA.47.360] Concept: purpose – section 47(10) ............................................................................................... [CCA.47.380] General exemptions ....................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.400] Notification ..................................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.420] Onus of proof ................................................................................................................................. [CCA.47.440] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.47.460] Tribunal decisions .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.480] Cases: education and training ....................................................................................................... [CCA.47.500] Cases: franchises .......................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.520] Cases: finance ............................................................................................................................... [CCA.47.540] Cases: Food and beverages ......................................................................................................... [CCA.47.560] Cases: health and medical ............................................................................................................ [CCA.47.580] Cases: retailers/distributors ........................................................................................................... [CCA.47.600] Cases: tenancies and real estate .................................................................................................. [CCA.47.620] Cases: transport and automotive ................................................................................................... [CCA.47.640] Cases – third line forcing ............................................................................................................... [CCA.47.660] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.47.680]

[CCA.47.20]

Context

It is broadly recognised that vertical restrictions can adversely affect competition, especially where they are imposed as a condition of supply by a firm that has market power. In the United States, tying arrangements and other forms of vertical restriction that substantially lessened competition or tended to create a monopoly were banned by the Sherman Act 1890 and the prohibition expanded in the Clayton Act 1914. In Australia, tying arrangements started to become the subject of adverse academic comment in the early 1960s, but the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1965 took a light-handed approach to dealing with these matters. Essentially, manufacturers or distributors were regarded as free to choose how they distributed their products and services, unless the Commissioner satisfied the Tribunal that the way they did so was contrary to the public interest. The prevailing government view in the late 1960s and early 1970s was that exclusive dealing between individual suppliers and individual distributors is generally regarded as a legitimate form of distribution. By 1974, the growing influence of United States antitrust thinking on Australian policymakers, and increased focus by economists on the impact of restrictive agreements on the economy, had changed attitudes. The Trade Practices Act 1974 addressed these issues simply and directly by providing that “a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in the practice of exclusive dealing”: s 47. The Act

496

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 47

then described the conduct which was prohibited in a few short paragraphs, each picking up a practice illustrated by United States jurisprudence thought to be applicable to Australia. Although the relevant provision was subsequently expanded in scope, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 continues to contain that simply expressed prohibition, with some tying conduct constituting a per se contravention, and other conduct only prohibited if it has an anticompetitive purpose or is likely to have an anticompetitive effect. For further information about the context for and exploration of the Australian position in relation to tying, see Miller’s Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2011). [CCA.47.40]

Proposals for Change

The Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) had recommended that s 47 be repealed and that consequential amendments be made to s 45 to cover vertical conduct, but. the Government did not proceed with that recommendation. However, it did accept a recommendation that the third-line forcing prohibition, which is currently a per se contravention, should only be prohibited where it has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition. On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to give effect to that decision by amending s 47(10) so that it will apply to each type of exclusive dealing conduct covered by the section, including third line forcing. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017. [CCA.47.60]

Summary

Section 47(1) proscribes the practice of “exclusive dealing”, defined in the succeeding subsections of s 47 by reference to specific enumerated vertical restraint practices. In effect the practices enumerated amount to a range of types of tying conduct considered in other jurisdictions as a sub-set of prohibitions on monopolization or abuse of dominance. The vertical restraint practices fall into the following categories: • supplying goods or services on condition that – – the purchaser does not acquire goods or services from a competitor of the supplier (s 47(2)); – the purchaser accepts some restriction on the right to resupply goods or services (s 47(2)); or – the purchaser acquires other goods or services from a third party (s 47(6)); • acquiring goods or services on condition that the supplier accepts some restriction as to the freedom to supply third parties (s 47(4)); • refusing to supply goods or services because – – the purchaser has dealt or refused to cease dealing in a competitor’s products (s 47(3)); – the purchaser has failed to accept some restriction on the right to resupply (s 47(3)); or – the purchaser refuses to acquire other goods or services from a third party (s 47(7)); • refusing to acquire goods or services because the supplier refuses to accept some restriction on the right to supply third parties (s 47(5)); and • aiding, abetting, procuring, counselling or inducing any corporation to engage in any of the conduct referred to above (s 75B). Exclusive dealing conduct will not contravene the Act unless the conduct has the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition: see [CCA.47.260]. The one exception is in relation to third line forcing: see [CCA.47.300]. Similar provisions apply in cases where the action by the superior party relates to the granting, renewing, terminating or refusing to grant or renew a lease or licence of land (s 47(8) and (9)).

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

497

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.47.60]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.60]

Although the section is directed at the conduct of corporations, the uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Competition Code (see Pt XIA and Sch 1) to individuals. Schedule 1 contains a direct equivalent to s 47 that applies to all “persons”. [CCA.47.80]

Concept: acquire directly or indirectly

The term “acquire” is defined in s 4: see [CCA.4.20]. In addition, s 4C provides that a reference to the acquisition of goods includes: • a reference to acquisition of property or rights in goods pursuant to a supply of the goods; • a reference to agreeing to acquire goods; and • a reference to the acquisition of goods together with other property or services. Section 4C also provides that the term has a similar meaning in relation to acquisition of services. In TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092 at 381 (FLR), Franki J said: [W]hen s 47(4) refers to the acquisition of goods directly from a second person it refers to the acquisition of goods from that person and when it refers to the acquisition of goods indirectly from a person it means an acquisition of goods from an agent of that person. In ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221, Drummond J expressed the view that the term “indirectly” has a broader meaning than that attributed to it by Franki J. His Honour said: There is therefore no reason, in my opinion, to say that the concept of indirect acquisition “from another person” in s 47(6) and (7) refers to acquisition only from an entity which is in a legal relationship of agency with that other person. I think the term “indirectly” has the wide meaning it bears in ordinary speech: “coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects, consequences, etc”. See also South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2001] FCA 862; (2001) 111 FCR 456; 181 ALR 188; [2001] ATPR 41-824 at [117] (ATPR). Although the words “will acquire” do not require some legally binding obligation, nevertheless the condition in question must involve some attribute of compulsion: SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180. Mere persuasion is insufficient: Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255. EXAMPLE • Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751 the High Court held that publicans were not required to “acquire” transport services from a carrier where the brewery insisted on the carrier transporting all beer to be delivered on behalf of the brewery but with the publican reimbursing the brewery for the transport cost. • Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust [1989] ATPR 40-951, the court held that a requirement that ticket sales for functions booked at the centre be handled by the centre, which in turn contracted with an agent to provide the service, was not in breach of s 47. [CCA.47.100]

Concept: body corporate

The term “body corporate” is not defined in the Act. The term encompasses any office or group of people recognised at law as having separate legal personality. Corporations, whether incorporated under the Corporations Law or by special statute, come within the definition. Government business enterprises established by statute as having the perpetual succession are examples of the latter. The term does not, however, encompass a body politic: Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s 22. Accordingly, States, Territories and the Commonwealth are not bodies corporate: R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 at 241

498

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 47

(CLR); Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285 at 210 (CLR). [CCA.47.120]

Concept: on condition that

Section 47 only applies where there is a relevantly identifiable condition imposed on supply, re-supply or acquisition of goods or services. The term “condition” is defined for the purposes of s 47, by s 47(13)(a), to include: • any direct or indirect condition; • any condition whether or not it has legal or equitable force; and • any condition the existence or nature of which is ascertainable by inference only. The condition does not need to be legally binding but it must have some attributes of compulsion and futurity. This can be expressed in the form: “If we do this, you will (must) do that.” A condition in the nature of an obligation must be imposed on the person dealing with the corporation. The condition to be complied with by that person must result from something done or to be done by the corporation: SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180 at 464 (FLR); ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483; s 47(13). The practice of exclusive dealing does not necessarily involve the imposition of any condition. It involves supply upon condition. The condition may well have been suggested by the recipient of supply. It may have been imposed by some third party. It may arise, by implication, from all the circumstances in which the goods or services were supplied: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221 at [79]. The section does not look at the origin of the condition upon which there is a supply of services. The section looks at the supply of services upon that condition: Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094 at 167 (FLR), 649 (ALR), 17,944 (ATPR) per Deane J; Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255 at 61 (FCR). Notwithstanding the broad terms with which the term “condition” is defined, the mere fact that exclusion of a competitor’s good or services is a consequence of what is done does not automatically mean that what was done was on condition that the competitor’s good or services be excluded: Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. In the case of supply conditions, they may take the form of absolute restrictions on acquisition from competitors, or on re-supply, or they may impose a limitation on acquisition or re-supply: see [CCA.47.240]. EXAMPLE • Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879, the court had to consider the effect of re-organisation of the way in which the Institute provided training to determine whether it involved exclusive dealing. The change involved the Institute providing course materials for certain modules as part of the inclusive course fee. The consequence was to reduce demand for the applicant’s course materials. Although the consequence of the Institute’s changes may have been that students did not acquire services from the applicant there was no relevant condition to that effect in what the Institute did. • Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. An Australian producer of CDs which told retailers that if they sourced CDs from outside Australia they might lose their current trading terms was found to have made an offer to supply services (benefits associated with the supply of other goods), on condition that the addressee did not thereafter acquire goods from a competitor, having regard

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

499

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.47.120]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.140]

to the extended concept of “condition” in s 47(13)(a). [CCA.47.140]

Concept: supply

This term is defined in s 4: see [CCA.4.520]. Section 4C provides that a reference to the supply of goods or services includes a reference to: • agreeing to supply goods or services; and • supplying goods or services together with other property or services or both. In ACCC v SIP Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 824; [2002] ATPR 41-877, Goldberg J took the view that s 47(2) did not deal with agreements to supply goods on prescribed conditions, it merely dealt with supply on prescribed conditions. However, his Honour did not refer to s 4C. The Act is concerned with supply, not status. Accordingly, if a franchise is terminated but supply continues, then s 47 will not necessarily be breached: Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd (1982) 64 FLR 238; 2 TPR 246; 44 ALR 173; [1982] ATPR 40-315; see also Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 509; 64 ALR 536; [1986] ATPR 40-653 at 531-532 (FCR). In ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215 Goldberg J said at [982]: The structure and content of s 47 is such that each of the practices proscribed in subss (2) to (9) is a practice in which the issue is the supply or acquisition of goods simpliciter rather than the supply or acquisition of goods on particular terms or conditions whether as to price or otherwise. The reason proscribed in s 47(5) is the reason “that the person … has supplied goods”, not the reason that the person has supplied goods at a particular price. Section 47(5) recognises in subpara (b) that exclusive dealing may occur where a person refuses to acquire goods “at a particular price from a person”, yet it does not provide that the proscribed reason include the reason that the body corporate has supplied goods at a particular price to a person. This recognition supports the conclusion that s 47(5) does not cover a situation where the reason for the refusal to acquire goods is that the supplier has supplied goods to another person for a particular price. Where a supply of both goods and services occurs, how is the supply to be characterised? In Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751, Wilson J said: The Act clearly contemplates that services may accompany the supply of goods in such a way as to constitute a single transaction properly described as a supply of goods. It follows that an act or series of acts, once characterised for the purposes of the Act as a supply of goods, cannot also be a supply of services. [CCA.47.160]

Concept: services

The term “services” is widely defined in s 4: see [CCA.4.500]. However, in the context of s 47 the term refers to services (including benefits) which the corporation is either then able to supply or which it will be able to supply in future, on performance of the relevant condition by the other party. The term does not refer to some service which the corporation is not able to supply at the time the conditional offer is made and which it may never be able to supply: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221, per Drummond J at [66] (ATPR (Digest)). A promise to use one’s best endeavours to procure membership of a club from the club’s governing body at some future time does not come within the definition of “services”: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221 at [68] (ATPR (Digest)).

500

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.47.180]

s 47

Concept: goods or services of a particular kind

In order to come within s 47 the relevant supply or acquisition of goods or services must be conditioned on some restriction on the recipient acquiring or supplying goods or services generally, or “goods or services of a particular kind” or description. Whether or not the provision of an interest in real property under a lease containing a covenant restricting the use to which the premises the subject of the lease may be put constitutes the provision of “services of a particular kind or description” is an open question: see ADC Centres Pty Ltd v Kilstream Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 549; [1979] ATPR 40-119 at 552 (ALR). [CCA.47.200]

Concepts: trade or commerce

See [CCA.4.540]. [CCA.47.220]

Concept: another person

The third line forcing prohibitions (s 47(6) & (7)) are predicated on the proposition that the person supplied is required to acquire goods or services from “another person”. This is to be compared with other exclusive dealing conduct, where the relevant question is how the conduct impacts on “particular persons or classes of persons”. In ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 919 Bennett J considered whether the term “another person” meaning a single person, includes the plural, whether the expression refers to any other person or persons, or does it mean a specified person or persons, and whether it encompasses a person who is part of a specified panel. After reviewing earlier authorities and referring to a comment by the majority in SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31, Her Honour concluded that, although it does not mean any other person, it may include a specified person or persons who are part of a panel of specified persons. Her Honour’s reference to a panel of specified persons is an acknowledgement of the view taken in KAM Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1994] FCA 1182 (Drummond J): see also Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 709 (Cowdroy J). The relevant person cannot, as a matter of construction, be the supplier or acquirer of the goods or services to which the section otherwise applies: Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd [2001] FCA 1040; (2001) 110 FCR 157; [2001] ATPR 41-831. Not all provisions in s 47 are framed in terms of “another person”. Section 47(2), (3) and (9) are expressed in terms of “competitor”, instead. In such cases there is no need for a specific competitor to be identified in order to establish a breach of the provision: ACCC v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800; (2001) 115 FCR 442; 201 ALR 502; [2002] ATPR 41-855. [CCA.47.240]

Concept: to a limited extent

Section 47 only applies where there is a relevantly identifiable condition imposed on supply, re-supply or acquisition of goods or services. In the case of supply conditions, they may take the form of absolute restrictions on acquisition from competitors, or on re-supply, or they may impose a limitation on acquisition or re-supply. The expression “will not, or will not except to a limited extent” does not encompass a condition that a supplier will supply whatever quantity of goods are required by a purchaser but only if the purchaser does not sell below a particular price. That is a matter dealt with under the resale price maintenance provisions. The expression refers to a blanket refusal to supply goods or to an agreement to the supply of a quantitatively limited amount of goods. It is not a phrase that is easily adapted to, or covers, a situation where the condition imposed by a supplier is a condition that the supplier will not supply goods where the purchaser undercuts the supplier or sells goods at prices cheaper than the supplier’s prices for its goods: ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

501

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.47.240]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47 [CCA.47.260]

[CCA.47.260] Concept: effect on competition

With the exception of cases involving product forcing (s 47(6), (7), (8)(c) and (9)(d)), exclusive dealing conduct will not be in breach of the Act unless the exclusive dealing conduct has the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition: s 47(10). The concept “substantially lessen competition” is explained at [CCA.45.280]. Not all exclusive dealing conduct will be anti-competitive, particularly when the conduct seeks to restrict intra-brand competition in the interests of promoting interbrand competition. In Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13; (2001) 205 CLR 1; 75 ALJR 600; 178 ALR 253; 50 IPR 257; [2001] ATPR 41-805 the High Court quoted (at [20]) with approval the following statement in Graphic Products Distributors Inc v Itek Corp (1983) 717 F 2d 1560; [1983-2] Trade Cases 65,670 at 1571 (F 2d): When a manufacturer restricts a dealer to selling only within a certain territory, or only to certain customers, or only from certain locations, it is necessarily constraining intrabrand competition … [However a] restriction of intrabrand competition may – depending on the interbrand market structure – either enhance or diminish overall competition. At least in markets that are geographically wide a refusal to supply is unlikey to substantially lessen competition if it does not, for instance, alter the market structure to produce anticompetitive effects such as by raising barriers to entry or reducing price competition: Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120; 44 ALR 667; [1982] ATPR 40-327 (Bowen CJ and Fisher J). Refusal to supply one of a number of competing customers is unlikely to substantially lessen competition if the market is otherwise generally competitive. As Fitzgerald J said in Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120; 44 ALR 667; [1982] ATPR 40-327: It would, I think, be an unusual and exceptional case in which it could be shown that competition in a generally competitive market was or was likely to be substantially lessened by a refusal to supply one of a number of competitive retailers in the market with a product otherwise freely available and competitively marketed. Further, where there is a market which is generally competitive, it plainly does not follow that conduct which affects the balance of competition by advantaging or disadvantaging a particular dealer or dealers or a particular product or product [sic] necessarily lessens the competition in the market. Where proof of effect on competition is an essential element in proving exclusive dealing, the onus of proving that effect rests with the applicant: Sodastream Ltd v Electronics (Broken Hill) Pty Ltd (1985) 60 ALR 427; [1985] ATPR 40-572. As to the term “competition”, see [CCA.4.140]. It should be noted that s 47(13)(b) and (c) make special reference to the term “competition” for the purposes of s 47. [CCA.47.280] Concept: market In order to determine whether particular conduct has an effect on competition, it is first necessary to define the “relevant market”. A market is the area of close competition between firms – the field of rivalry between them: [CCA.4E.20]. Section 47(13) introduces the following markets for the purposes of the s 47 prohibitions: • where the relevant conduct relates to the granting, renewing, terminating or refusing to grant or renew a lease or licence of land (s 47(8) and (9)) – any market in which the offending corporation or any body corporate related to it deals, or would otherwise deal or in which any corporation restricted by the practice or any body corporate related to it deals or would otherwise deal; • where the relevant conduct does not fall within any of the above categories – any market in which the offending corporation or any body corporate related to it deals or would otherwise deal, or in which any person (including companies) restricted by the practice or any related body corporate deals or would otherwise deal.

502

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.47.300]

s 47

Third line forcing – overview

Third line forcing, covered by s 47(6) and (7), has as its objective prohibiting the supplier of particular goods or services requiring consumers who want those goods or services having to take other, perhaps unwanted, goods or services from a third party in order to get the supplier’s goods or services: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221. Third line forcing requires two distinct goods or services with the supply of the first by one party being conditioned on acquisition of the second from a different party. Where a single package of products or services are supplied there will be no third line forcing, even though different, unrelated organisations produce the various goods or services making up the package: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221. Section 47(6) and (7) make third line forcing a per se breach of the Act unless the third line forcing is in relation to products or services provided by related bodies corporate. However, the Government has announced its intention to amend the Act to prohibit third-line forcing only if it has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition: see [CCA.47.40]. Third line forcing between related bodies corporate is not a breach of the other provisions of s 47, even if it has an anti-competitive purpose or likely effect: s 47(12). Third line forcing conduct may be notified: see s 93(3A). Third line forcing is also able to be authorised by the ACCC on public benefit grounds. For instance, in Re Australian Stock Exchange Ltd [1995] ATPR (Com) 50-210, the Commission granted authorisation for five years to the Australian Stock Exchange requiring its clearing members to use a nominated company for clearance of options and other trading instruments. The current strict nature of the prohibition has led to dispute over its application. First, there has been the argument over the form the transaction takes. In Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751, the High Court found the conduct of a brewery which sold beer on a delivered basis to be permissible. The same result occurred in Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust [1989] ATPR 40-951, where parties wishing to use the centre had to use its booking service, which was operated under contract by a third party. However, as Drummond J pointed out in ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221 (at [82]-[84]) (ATPR (Digest)), these cases did not turn merely on whether there was one contract rather than two: see also ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483. The question is whether or not there is a single supply of goods or services. This point is well illustrated by Re Australian Assn of Pathology Practices Inc [2004] ACompT 4; (2004) 180 FLR 44; 206 ALR 271; [2004] ATPR 41-985. Second, there has been the argument over compulsion. In SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180, a full court of the Federal Court found that rebate travel arrangements did not breach s 47(6) because the service was not conditional in the sense required by the section. This approach was also taken in Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255. In SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180 at 42,473 (ATPR), Northrop J suggested the following test: It does not matter whether the condition is legally binding or not, see s 47(13)(a) … but in my opinion the condition must have some attributes of compulsion and futurity. This can be expressed in the form “If we do this, you will (must) do that”. A condition in the nature of an obligation must be imposed upon the person dealing with the corporation. The condition to be complied with must result from something done or to be done by the corporation imposing the condition. In TPC v Tepeda Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-319; [1994] ACL Rep 420 Davies J declined to import any concept of compulsion into the construction of the section. However, in ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483 Gordon J rejected a submission by the ACCC that

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

503

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.47.300]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.300]

compulsion was not necessary, and the prevailing view, based on SWB [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180, is that, although there does not need to be a legal obligation, some form of compulsion must be present: see ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 919 (Bennett J); KAM Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1994] FCA 1182; Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255 (Ryan J). See also Australian Automotive Repairers’ Assn (Political Action Committee) Inc v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] FCA 1568; Re Ku-ring-gai Co-op Building Soc (No 12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134; 22 ALR 621; [1978] ATPR 40-094; TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-op Soc Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 372; [1978] ATPR 40-092. [CCA.47.320]

Third line forcing – legislative history

Third line forcing was an examinable practice under the Trade Practices Act 1965-67 but it was not until the Trade Practices Act 1974 that the practice constituted a per se breach. Section 47(4) of that Act provided: A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation requires, as a condition of the supply to a person of goods or services, that the person acquire all or a part of his requirements of other goods or services directly or indirectly from a second person. The Swanson Committee, inquiring into the operation of the Act in 1976, recommended that third line forcing should continue to be a per se contravention, only permissible if an authorisation is granted, because, although “the practice of forcing another person’s product may be justifiable in certain cases. However, the Committee is of the opinion that the practice will, in virtually all cases, have an anticompetitive effect”. The 1993 Hilmer report, National Competition Policy Review, recommended replacement of the per se prohibition with the “substantial lessening of competition” test that applies in relation to other exclusive dealing conduct but that recommendation was not accepted. Instead the Notification procedure set out in s 93 was introduced. Under the Notification procedure, third line forcing notified to the ACCC will be immunised, after a short interval, unless the ACCC forms the opinion that the likely public benefit from the conduct will not outweigh the likely detriment: s 93(3A). The inclusion of the Notification procedure, has been taken to indicate that Parliament’s concern in Section 47(6) and (7) is with anti-competitive conduct, consistent with the view that many, if not most instances of third line forcing, will be anti-competitive: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402 (Drummond J); ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 919 (Bennett J). [CCA.47.340]

Third line forcing – bundled services

Conduct does not qualify as third line forcing unless the customer “another person” from whom goods or services are to be acquired is involved: see [1.47.55]. How, then, are bundled goods and services to be regarded? Where services are bundled, with the one supplier taking responsibility for supply of the whole bundle, no third line forcing will be involved, because third line forcing involves requiring, as a condition of supply, that the customer acquire from another person: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751. As Cowdroy J explained in Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 709: Package arrangements, where one or multiple companies contribute different elements of a package of goods and/or services which is then offered to the customer, do not constitute third line forcing, even if the customer could have arranged for all of the elements of the package to be obtained separately and even if there is no reason for insistence on a package except for the supplier’s requirement. The key distinction seems to be whether or not there is a single supply of a bundle of goods or services from the one provider, although Section 47(6) includes reference to goods or services being acquired

504

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 47

directly or indirectly from another person. This opens to question the circumstances, with bundled products and services, in which an indirect acquisition from another person arises. The term “directly or indirectly acquire” also appears in s 50, but its meaning has not been settled: see [1.50.25]. Courts must be careful to distinguish between legitimate package arrangements that do not amount to third line forcing and a sham or artificially contrived package that is structured to circumvent the prohibition on third line forcing: Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 709 (Cowdroy J). That is not, of course, a simple task. [CCA.47.360] Concept: religious, charitable and public benevolent institutions Section 47(11) provides the provisions of s 47 relating to leases (s 47(8), (9)) do not apply to conduct engaged in by religious, charitable or public benevolent institutions if the conduct: • is for or in accordance with the objects of the institution; or • is engaged in pursuant to a legally enforceable requirement of the institution made for, or in accordance with, the objects of the institution. [CCA.47.380] Concept: purpose – section 47(10) Section 47(1) provides that, with the exception of cases involving product forcing (s 47(6), (7), (8)(c) and (9)(d)), exclusive dealing conduct will not be in breach of the Act unless the exclusive dealing conduct has the “purpose” or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. What is meant by the term “purpose” in this context? The language of s 47(10), taken together with s 4F establish that “purpose” when used in that subsection means the actual purpose of the relevant respondent: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. See also News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943. However, “purpose” is not to be confused with the motive, which is the reason for seeking an end rather than the effect sought to be achieved: News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; (2003) 215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157; [2003] ATPR 41-943; J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v ACCC [2000] FCA 365; (2000) 172 ALR 532; [2000] ATPR 41-758. While the best evidence of purpose in cases where the purpose of an individual might be the statements made by that person in the witness box, those statements must be tested closely and received with the greatest caution and assessed by looking at what the respondent had actually done: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 482-483 (FCR). Purpose will usually be inferred from the nature of the conduct, the circumstances in which it was made and its likely effect: Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165. See also [CCA.46.700] and [CCA.45.240], but note that in s 46 the reference is to a discreet list of potential purposes and in s 45 the term refers to the purpose of a provision rather that the purpose of the corporation engaging in the relevant conduct. [CCA.47.400] General exemptions In addition to the exemption from operation of s 47 which can be obtained by either lodging a notification or obtaining an authorisation, reference should be made to the general exemptions specified in s 51. In addition, s 47(12) exempts from the operation of the section conduct engaged in by related companies pursuant to which one of the related companies restricts the dealings of another related company. As to whether or not companies are related, see s 4A. [CCA.47.420] Notification A corporation proposing to engage in exclusive dealing conduct may avoid liability by lodging a notification with the ACCC: see s 93(1) and reg 9.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

505

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.47.420]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.420]

Where a notification is lodged, the conduct of the lodging party will not be treated as being in breach of s 47 unless and until the ACC revokes the notification: s 93(7)(b). However, notifications in relation to third line forcing conduct do not take immediate effect: see [CCA.93.100]. If the ACCC revokes the notification the applicant may apply to the Tribunal for review of the giving of the notice: s 101A. [CCA.47.440]

Onus of proof

The applicant bears the onus of proving that the exclusive dealing conduct which it is challenging has or is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition: John S Hayes & Assocs Pty Ltd v Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-318; Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752. The standard of proof is dealt with at [CCA.76.160]. [CCA.47.460]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 in the case of a corporation, of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A) at [CCA.76.20]. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. [CCA.47.480] Tribunal decisions • Re Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd (No 3) [2013] ACompT 3. The Tribunal upheld a decision by the ACCC to revoke a Notification in relation to s 47(2) conduct involving offering to supply grain storage and handling facilities and services to grain growers or marketers on the condition that they also acquire supply chain co-ordination services and transport services from the applicant. • Re Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [1981] ATPR 40-200; sub nom Re Southern Cross Beverages Pty Ltd (1981) 50 FLR 176; [1981] ATPR 40-200. The Tribunal refused approval for an arrangement under which the applicant supplied refrigerated soft-drink cabinets to shopkeepers on the basis that they could only be used to stock the applicant’s products. [CCA.47.500] Cases: education and training • Monroe Topple & Assocs Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110; [2002] ATPR 41-879. The Institute changed its training requirements to include, at no additional cost, training materials which were previously charged separately. The court accepted that this amounted to a supply of services to each student on the basis that, for the fee paid, the student would get the materials at no additional cost and may not elect not to receive those materials with the consequence that the student might not acquire services from the applicant. Nevertheless this was not a breach of s 47 because it was not a condition of the acquisition of services from the Institute that no services be acquired from other suppliers. [CCA.47.520] Cases: franchises • John S Hayes & Assocs Pty Ltd v Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-318. The respondent was a major supplier in the market for commercial washroom products. It terminated the distributorship of one of its largest distributors. That distributor had dealt in competitive products. The applicant failed in a claim based on s 47 because it could not prove that the respondent had terminated for the purpose of substantially lessening competition in any relevant market or that the termination had that effect.

506

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 47

• TPC v Massey Ferguson (Aust) Ltd (1983) 67 FLR 364; [1983] ATPR 40-369. A major distributor of agricultural tractors pleaded guilty to having engaged in exclusive dealing in relation to certain of its dealers in an attempt to introduce one brand dealerships throughout Australia. A penalty of $40,000 was imposed. • Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd (1982) 64 FLR 238; 2 TPR 246; 44 ALR 173; [1982] ATPR 40-315. A manufacturer of outboard marine engines was found not to have breached the exclusive dealing provisions when it cancelled a franchise because the dealer had acquired outboard motors from a competitor because, on the evidence, the conduct of the manufacturer did not have a substantial effect on competition in the relevant market: see also Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120; 44 ALR 667; [1982] ATPR 40-327. [CCA.47.540] Cases: finance • ACCC v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020. Visa admitted contravening s 47(2) in relation to participation in the Visa payment card network when it imposed a condition on the supply of those services that the financial institutions not acquire, except to a limited extent, currency conversion services from providers that supplied those in competition to Visa. Penalty of $18 million imposed. • ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483. The respondent was found to have engaged in third line forcing when it entered into contracts to provide merchants with an electronic payment facility requiring the merchants to acquire a computer terminal from another party. • ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221. The promotion of a scheme to build a sporting and entertainment complex, the funds for which were to be raised through the sale of investment policies tied to an opportunity to join the associated football club was held not to constitute third line forcing. Upheld on appeal: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] FCAFC 17; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-165. • AV Jennings Ltd v First Provincial Building Society Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-494. The applicant failed to establish that there was a case to answer when a building society refused to deal with the applicant further in advancing home loans to buyers of the applicant’s homes. [CCA.47.560] Cases: Food and beverages • Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 119 (Collier J). The applicant succeeded, on an interlocutory application, in establishing that there was a prima facie case to the effect that the respondent had refused to supply plastic products to the applicant required for its milk business, because the applicant had acquired other plastic products from a third party. However, the applicant failed to establish that, on the balance of convenience, an interlocutory injunction to require continued supply was appropriate. [CCA.47.580] Cases: health and medical • ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 113. The respondent, facing the imminent end of its patent in relation to its atorvastatin product, Lipitor, introduced a “rebate” scheme designed to ensure that, once the patent expired, pharmacies took substantial quantities of its generic atorvastatin rather than the products of generic manufacturers. The respondent admitted that its conduct had amounted to a supply “on condition” but the court accepted that the conduct had not been engaged in for the purpose of substantially lessening competition. • ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 128; (2006) 153 FCR 574; 22 ALR 627; [2006] ATPR 42-128. This case involved allegations of exclusive dealing in relation to the supply of medical products to State and Territory health authorities for use in public hospitals. The court dismissed the claims because it concluded that the relevant conduct was covered by Crown

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

507

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.47.580]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 47

[CCA.47.580] immunity. At first instance the court decided that the respondent’s conduct would have breached s 47 were it not for derivative immunity: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 581; [2005] ATPR 42-066. The High Court subsequently decided that derivative immunity did not apply: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 38; (2007) 232 CLR 1; 81 ALJR 1622; 237 ALR 512; [2007] ATPR 42-172. The case was remitted to the Federal Court and Baxter was found to have engaged in exclusive dealing: ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 141; (2008) 170 FCR 16; 249 ALR 674. • ACCC v Health Partners Inc (1997) 151 ALR 662; [1998] ATPR 41-604. A health fund which gave notice terminating a pharmacy which participated in the fund’s scheme to provide discounts to members because the pharmacy had withdrawn from a particular buying group was found to have breached s 47 even though the termination notice was withdrawn.

[CCA.47.600] Cases: retailers/distributors • ACCC v Fila Sport Oceania Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 376; [2004] ATPR 41-983; Aust Contract R 90-192. The respondent adopted a policy of not supplying Australian Rules apparel, which it manufactured under licence, to retailers who stocked rival products. The policy was found to be in breach of s 47. • Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. The respondents breached s 47 when they instituted policies of reviewing the terms on which they traded with stores which stocked parallel import compact discs in order to discourage those stores from parallel importation of compact discs. Penalties of $1 million imposed on each appellant. • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215. The ACCC failed to establish that the respondent had breached s 47 when the respondent gave effect to a policy of not stocking bread from manufacturers who gave other supermarkets a lower price than they gave the respondent. [CCA.47.620] Cases: tenancies and real estate • Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust [1989] ATPR 40-951. A requirement that ticket sales for functions booked at the National Tennis Centre be handled by the centre, which in turn contracted with an agent to provide the service, was held not in breach of s 47. • TPC v Tooth & Co Ltd (1979) 142 CLR 397; 53 ALJR 696; 26 ALR 185; [1979] ATPR 40-127. A brewery unsuccessfully sought a declaration pursuant to s 163A that to the extent that s 47(9) referred to the renewal of leases it exceeded the constitutional competence of the Australian Parliament. • ADC Centres Pty Ltd v Kilstream Pty Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 549; [1979] ATPR 40-119. The owner of a shopping centre complex, part of which was leased to the operator of a leisure and sports complex under a lease entered prior to 1 July 1977 which provided that the lessor would not lease adjacent premises for the purpose, inter alia, of a retail sporting goods shop, instituted proceedings under the then TPA (now the CCA) against the respondent alleging that the clause in the lease amounted to a breach of s 47. On an application for interlocutory relief, the court refused the interim injunction sought. [CCA.47.640] Cases: transport and automotive • ACCC v Black & White Cabs Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1399. The respondent admitted engaging in third line forcing when it entered an agreement to use the Cabcharge taxi payment system and then made it a condition of the offers to taxi operators to provide network services and taxi licence services that the operators use Cabcharge. Penalties totalling $110,000 imposed and injunction and remedial training orders made by consent.

508

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 47

• Australian Automotive Repairers’ Assn (Political Action Committee) Inc (in liq) v Insurance Australia Ltd [2006] FCAFC 33; [2006] ATPR 42-111. The appellants failed to establish that the respondent had engaged in exclusive dealing conduct in relation to its preferred repairer scheme, under which it encouraged its insureds to use panel beaters when claims were made under policies issued by the respondent. • SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417. A loan was made by the applicant, guaranteed by the respondent, on the basis that the borrower was to use a company associated with the applicant for its freight forwarding needs. When the loan fell due, the respondent contended that the guarantee was void because the arrangement constituted third line forcing. The High Court confirmed that the arrangement constituted third line forcing. However, the court held that the offending provisions could be severed and accordingly that the guarantee could be enforced. • Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; [2000] ATPR 41-752. The applicant failed in its challenge to a tender for the provision of towage services at the port of Bunbury. The applicant had sought to establish that, by tendering for an exclusive supplier of towage services under a licence that set caps on prices, the Port Authority would be a party to an exclusive dealing arrangement and that the effect of the arrangement would be to fix the price of towage services at the port. The application failed because the applicant failed to prove the requisite effect on competition. [CCA.47.660] Cases – third line forcing • Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 709. A telecommunications provider that informed customers that, in order to obtain telephone credits, the customers were obliged to acquire equipment financed by one of two nominated companies, one of which was the applicant. The conduct amounted to third line forcing. • ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 919. The court refused to strike out pleadings in proceedings brought by the ACCC claiming that the respondent, by giving telephone call credits linked to the leasing of equipment such as televisions and photocopiers from finance companies, had engaged in third line forcing. • ACCC v Bill Express Ltd [2009] FCA 1022; (2009) 180 FCR 105; 259 ALR 483. The respondent was found to have engaged in third line forcing when it entered into contracts to provide merchants with an electronic payment facility requiring the merchants to acquire a computer terminal from another party. • SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; (2006) 225 CLR 516; 80 ALJR 1190; 228 ALR 417. A loan was made by the applicant, guaranteed by the respondent, on the basis that the borrower was to use a company associated with the applicant for its freight forwarding needs. When the loan fell due, the respondent contended that the guarantee was void because the arrangement constituted third line forcing. The High Court confirmed that the arrangement constituted third line forcing. • ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-221. The promotion of a scheme to build a sporting and entertainment complex, the funds for which were to be raised through the sale of investment policies tied to an opportunity to join the associated football club was held not to constitute third line forcing. Upheld on appeal: ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] FCAFC 17; [2003] Aust Contract R 90-165. • KAM Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1994] FCA 1182. Conduct by the respondent, who stated that it would provide finance for a vehicle if the vehicle were purchased through one of its panel of approved dealers was found capable of amounting to third line forcing.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

509

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.47.660]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 48

[CCA.47.660] • Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Assn Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35; [1993] ATPR 41-255. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent had engaged in third line forcing in relation to agreement with its member newsagents, and promotional material, that sought to create a sense of obligation on those members to participate in arranged product promotions, but did not go so far as to impose a requirement to participate. • Paul Dainty Corp Pty Ltd v National Tennis Centre Trust [1989] ATPR 40-951. A requirement that ticket sales for functions booked at the National Tennis Centre be handled by the centre, which in turn contracted with an agent to provide the service, was held not to involve third line forcing. • Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395; 61 ALJR 10; 68 ALR 376; [1986] ATPR 40-751. The appellant succeeded in establishing that its conduct in supplying beer to publicans only on the basis that the brewery arranged transport as part of the package, did not amount to third line forcing. The respondent had sought to provide transportation services to a publican who wanted to buy the appellant’s beer and arrange its own transport. • SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445; 32 ALR 365; [1980] ATPR 40-180. A full Federal Court found that the appellant, a credit union, had not engaged in third line forcing when it made an arrangement with a travel agent to receive rebates when members of the credit union booked overseas travel with the agent and credited the rebates back to the relevant member.

[CCA.47.680]

Further reading

See Lipinski: “Blurring the Bright Line? Third Line forcing Revisited” (2014) AJCCL 23; Griggs, “Tying Arrangements Within Franchise Contracts – How Should They be Evaluated?” (1998) 6 TPLJ 220; Landrigan, “Vertical Price and Non-Price Restraints in Australia and the US” (1997) 25 ABLR 312; Lipton, “Third Line Forcing in Australia: Current Problems and Future Directions” (1996) 4 TPLJ 77; McEwin, “Third Line Forcing in Australia” (1994) 22 ABLR 114; Hanks and Williams, “The Treatment of Vertical Restraints under the Trade Practices Act” (1987) 15 ABLR 147; Hurley, “The Castlemaine Tooheys Case and the Interpretation of the ‘Third Line Forcing’ Provisions” (1987) 61 ALJ 415. 48

Resale price maintenance A corporation or other person shall not engage in the practice of resale price maintenance.

SECTION 48 COMMENTARY Summary .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.48.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.48.40] Object of prohibition ......................................................................................................................... [CCA.48.60] Standard of proof ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.48.80] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.48.100] Assessment of damages ............................................................................................................... [CCA.48.120] Mitigating circumstances ................................................................................................................ [CCA.48.140] RPM and authorisations ................................................................................................................ [CCA.48.160] Cases: cancellation of dealership .................................................................................................. [CCA.48.180] Cases: cancellation of sales support ............................................................................................. [CCA.48.200] Cases: retailers/distributors – food ................................................................................................ [CCA.48.220] Cases: retailers/distributors – clothing and footwear ..................................................................... [CCA.48.240] Cases: retailers/distributors – petroleum ....................................................................................... [CCA.48.260] Cases: retailers/distributors – motor vehicles and automotive products ....................................... [CCA.48.280] Cases: retailers/distributors – health, beauty and chemical products ........................................... [CCA.48.300] Cases: retailers/distributors – electronic products ......................................................................... [CCA.48.320]

510

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 48

Cases: retailers/distributors – household products ........................................................................ [CCA.48.340] Cases: retailers/distributors – sports goods .................................................................................. [CCA.48.360] Further reading .............................................................................................................................. [CCA.48.380]

[CCA.48.20]

Summary

This section imposes a ban on resale price maintenance regardless of its effect on competition, although resale price maintenance may be authorised. The object of this section, explained at [CCA.48.60], is to ensure that competition is unfettered by price restraints imposed by suppliers on resuppliers of goods or services. The term “resale price maintenance” refers, essentially, to a supplier specifying the price, or the minimum price, at which its goods or services may be resold, and enforces that right. Experience has shown that there are many ways in which a supplier can ensure that the supplier’s resale price requirements are complied with. Consequently, the Act goes to significant lengths to define resale price maintenance by setting out a catalogue of specific practices that make it up. In relation to the supply of goods they are: • attempting to induce a person not to sell the supplier’s goods at less than a price specified by the supplier; • making it known to a person that the supplier will not supply products to the person unless that person agrees not to sell those products below the supplier’s specified price; • entering an agreement for the supply of goods containing a provision that the purchaser will not sell the goods below the supplier’s specified price; • withholding supply of goods because: – the purchaser has not agreed not to sell the goods below the supplier’s specified price; or – the purchaser has sold the supplier’s goods less than the supplier’s specified price; or – a purchaser from the persons supplied by the supplier has either: • not agreed not to sell below the supplier’s specified price; or • has sold the supplier’s goods less than the supplier’s specified price; or • using, in relation to the supply of goods, a statement as to price which is likely to be understood by the purchaser as a minimum sale price. The term is defined in a similar way in relation to the supply of services. [CCA.48.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 September 2016, the Government released an exposure draft of legislation to implementing the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that: • there should be an exemption for RPM conduct between related bodies corporate; and • the Notification process should be extended to resale price maintenance, thereby making it easier to obtain an immunity in appropriate cases. The Bill proposes to amend s 48 by renumbering the current section as s 48(1) and adding: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a corporation or other person engaging in conduct that constitutes the practice of resale price maintenance if: (a) the corporation or other person has given the Commission a notice under subsection 93(1) describing the conduct; and (b) the notice is in force under section 93. In addition, the Bill proposes to add to s 96: (8) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to any act referred to in a paragraph of subsection (3) if the supplier and the second person referred to in that paragraph are bodies corporate that are related to each other. Legislation was not introduced before Parliament rose for 2016, but is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the first quarter of 2017 with a view to coming into effect on 1 July 2017.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

511

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.48.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 48 [CCA.48.60]

[CCA.48.60] Object of prohibition

The prohibition against resale price maintenance is the longest standing provision in modern Australian competition law. It was originally introduced in 1971. The prohibition has its origins in the United States. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided that vertical resale price maintenance was a per se breach of the Sherman Act: Dr Miles Medical Company v John D Park & Sons Company 220 US 373 (1911) See also Albrecht v Herald Co 390 US 145 (1968). In the United Kingdom, the Resale Price Act 1964 rendered void any provision in a contract for the sale of goods that purported to establish a minimum resale price. However, in Australia until the late 1960s, the commonly held view was that manufacturers should be free to sell their products in any way they chose. It was common practice for manufacturers to issue retail prices for their products and any retailer who discounted was regarded as undermining the product and refused supply. In 1971, circumstances changed dramatically when the Australian Council of Trade Unions invested in a department store in Melbourne, Bourke’s, and started a public campaign to force the position with manufacturers who refused to supply the store because it discounted their products. The government responded with the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971, prohibiting resale price maintenance. That prohibition was carried over into, and was expanded in its scope in, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and remains a per se contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The constitutional validity of the resale price maintenance provisions in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971 were unsuccessfully challenged in Mikasa (NSW) Pty Ltd v Festival Stores [1972] HCA 69; (1972) 127 CLR 617; 47 ALJR 14; [1972-73] ALR 921. Over the intervening years in the United States, a growing number of commentators have questioned the sense of a per se prohibition against resale price maintenance: see, for example, Posner Antitrust Law (Chicago University Press, 2nd edition 2001) p 189. In Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc v PSKS Inc [2007-1] Trade Cases 75,753; 551 US 877, the US Supreme Court decided to overturn Dr Miles, doing away with the pre se rule in relation to resale price maintenance, at least as part of Federal US law. The court noted that economics literature is replete with pro-competitive justifications for a manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance. In Australia, while there is no sign that a change to the legislation is likely, in one decision, ACCC v Jurilique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79; [2007] ATPR 42-146, the court questioned whether the prohibition should be per se. Spender J commented: There is a respectable view among economists … that vertical price restraints such as retail price maintenance are not anti-competitive. Such economists would argue that there is absolutely no basis on which such practices should be illegal per se, even if there is room for the view that they should be subject to a “rule of reason”. … [They] support vertical price restraints such as resale price maintenance, presuming them to be pro competitive and producing significant economic benefits, by facilitating the distribution of products to consumers … Resale price maintenance is said to enable a supplier to maintain the reseller’s profit level, and therefore the incentive the reseller has to distribute the goods. For examples of how resale price maintenance may assist new products entering the market and increase competition … The prevention of a “free ride” by discounting retailers is one justification for resale price maintenance ... The use of resale price maintenance to prevent retailers taking a free ride is particularly important for prestige goods, where a manufacturer substantially invests in creating an image based on quality and prestige to increase demand for its product. There is a strong case for the argument that by employing a minimum resale price, and preventing the undercutting of prices by discount retailers, the image and status of a product is protected; that is, the high price is a mechanism through which a manufacturer can certify to its customers consumer that the products they are purchasing are of a high quality …

512

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 48

The effective use of mechanisms such as retail price maintenance by manufacturers and suppliers, particularly in the higher end of the market, and the utility of restraining manufacturers from employing such policies in relation to prices, will not doubt continue to be the subject of serious and genuine debate. For further information about the context for and exploration of the Australian position in relation to resale price maintenance, see Miller’s Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2011). [CCA.48.80]

Standard of proof

See [CCA.96.360]. [CCA.48.100]

Penalties

The consequence of a breach can be the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76 in the case of a corporation, of up to $10 million, the value of the benefit attributable to the breach or 10% of annual turnover (whichever is the greatest). For individuals the maximum penalty remains $500,000, but the individual may also be disqualified from managing a corporation: see s 76(1A) at [CCA.76.20]. See generally commentary at s 76. In addition, damages and injunction remedies are available under ss 82 and 80 and remedial orders under s 87. There is what has been described as a fierce debate about whether resale price maintenance produces anti-competitive consequences, as Spender J noted in ACCC v Jurilique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79; [2007] ATPR 42-146 (quoted at [CCA.48.60]) and Finkelstein J noted in ACCC v Netti Atom Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1945. Nevertheless, as it is a per se contravention, resale price maintenance is illegal regardless of its effect on competition or its impact on the market and will therefore be dealt with by the court on that basis: see, for example, ACCC v Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1413. In TPC v Stihl Chain Saws (Aust) Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-091; [1978] TPRS 305.14 at 17,896 (ATPR), Smithers J said: The penalty should constitute a real punishment proportionate to the deliberation with which the defendant contravened the provisions of the Act. It should be sufficiently high to have a deterrent quality, and it should be kept in mind that the Act operates in a commercial environment where deterrents of those minded to contravene its provisions is not likely to be achieved by penalties which are not realistic. It should reflect the will of Parliament that the commercial standards laid down by the Act must be observed, but not be so high as to be oppressive. In another resale price maintenance case, TPC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 296; [1985] ATPR 40-503 at 298 (FCR), Toohey J said: The penalty should be such as to deter not only the particular offender but others who may be disposed to engage in prohibited conduct of a similar kind. … Clearly much depends on the deliberateness of the offender’s conduct, the extent to which [the offending conduct] has been carried on and the damage caused to anyone by that conduct. At the same time one must not lose sight of the fact that s 76 of the Act is not directly concerned with compensation; that is the role of s 82. There is the wider public interest in ensuring that the provisions of the Act are observed. The seriousness of the contravention may also be measured by the degree to which it was initiated or acquiesced in by the senior management. In TPC v Simpson Pope Ltd [1980] FCA 83; (1980) 47 FLR 334 (note); 30 ALR 544; [1980] TPRS 315.1; [1980] ATPR 40-169, Franki J said: It is not entirely clear whether a single act contravenes s 48 because it is conduct which falls within more than one category in s 96(3). For example, s 96(3)(a) and s 96(3)(f) constitute more than one contravention of s 48, but in any event I would regard such an act as being appropriately treated as a single contravention of s 48 for the purpose of fixation of a penalty.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

513

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.48.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 48

[CCA.48.100]

See also TPC v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-563; TPC v BP Australia Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-652; TPC v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-772. [CCA.48.120]

Assessment of damages

In Hubbards Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 430; 1 TPR 354; 41 ALR 509; [1982] ATPR 40-295, Lockhart J considered the question of assessment of damages in an action for breach of the resale price maintenance provisions and established the following principles: • Although the Act does not require a causal connection between the conduct constituting the contravention and the loss or damage, there must be some causal connection. • The proper approach to the assessment of damages is to compare the position in which the plaintiff might be expected to have been in if there had been no contravention with the position the plaintiff was in fact in as a result of the contravention. [CCA.48.140]

Mitigating circumstances

In TPC v Malleys Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 250; [1979] ATPR 40-118, the court accepted that an incentive scheme, although in breach of the resale price maintenance provisions, was not introduced for that purpose and, in assessing penalty, found the following matters relevant: • Malleys had promptly cancelled the arrangement when its effect was discovered and before it was aware of any Trade Practices Commission investigation. • Malleys had co-operated fully with the Trade Practices Commission and had made a full and frank disclosure. • Malleys had offered, and continued to offer, undertakings against further breaches. • There was no evidence of improved systems and control having being implemented by Malleys to provide guidance for future conduct and ensure that future breaches did not occur. Counsel for Malleys argued that the penalty should not be substantial because there was no evidence of loss or damage. Lockhart J said (at 254): [T]he inability of any party to quantify the damage under a breach of the retail price maintenance provisions of the Act is a consideration to be given due weight; but I do place some reliance upon the economic philosophies underlying the Act which, prima facie, suggest that the actions of resale price maintenance lead to a distortion of the market mechanism and to economic waste. See generally TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1979) 44 FLR 145; TPC v Bata Shoe Co of Australia Pty Ltd [1980] ATPR 40-161; TPC v Dunlop Australia Ltd [1980] FCA 76; (1980) 43 FLR 434; 30 ALR 469; [1980] ATPR 40-167. [CCA.48.160]

RPM and authorisations

Although resale price maintenance conduct may be authorised under s 88(8A) and, until recently it has been thought that the ACCC would be highly unlikely to grant an authorisation. No application had been made since the Act was amended to allow authorisation for RPM conduct in 1995. In the first authorisation application, Re Tooltechnic Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd (A91433; 5 December 2014), the ACCC decided to grant conditional authorisation for the applicant to include in its dealer agreements a requirement that they not sell its high quality power tool products below nominated minimum prices. The ACCC accepted that the conduct would address market failure through free riding if discounting were to occur, given that: [the products] are highly differentiated in terms of their attributes and quality, and the provision of services to customers is important … These services include pre-sale explanations, demonstrations and “try-before-you-buy” of Festool products and post-sales services such as repairs, loan tools and training in use of a product. Full-service retailers are well placed to effectively and efficiently explain and demonstrate these attributes to potential customers, and to provide after-sales services to existing customers.

514

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 48

As this was the first RPM application for authorisation and the ACCC found it difficult to weigh benefits and detriments, the authorisation was limited to 4 years. In addition, the ACCC imposed an annual reporting obligation on the applicant so that it could monitor the impact. The free riding issue arising from discounting of sophisticated products evident in this case potentially applies to a wide range of products. Whether this decision signals a more relaxed ACCC view in relation to RPM and an opportunity for other manufacturers and importers of sophisticated products to better manage the sales and support for their products with the benefit of an authorisation, remains to be seen. [CCA.48.180]

Cases: cancellation of dealership

Resale price maintenance cases often arise in the context of cancellations of dealership. The dealer often seeks to argue that the cancellation was because the dealer discounted, thereby utilising the reversal of onus of proof provided in s 100. • Ron Hodgson (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Westco Motors (Distributors) Pty Ltd (1980) 29 ALR 307; [1980] ATPR 40-143. The applicant successfully restrained the respondent from cancelling its dealership, notwithstanding good business reasons for doing so, on the grounds of resale price maintenance. The respondent subsequently pleaded guilty to breaches of s 48 and was fined $70,000: TPC v Kensington Hiring Co Pty Ltd [1981] ATPR 40-256. • In Peter Williamson Pty Ltd v Capitol Motors Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 257; 41 ALR 613; [1982] ATPR 40-291; 1 TPR 309. The applicant sought an injunction to restrain the respondent, the distributor for BMW motor vehicles, from terminating the applicant’s dealership on the basis of alleged breaches of the resale price maintenance provisions. The applicant, relying on ss 100 and 96(3)(d)(ii), alleged that it had sold vehicles at less than the respondent’s recommended retail prices within six months of the termination notice and that the respondent was aware that it had done so. The court held that no breach had occurred. [CCA.48.200] Cases: cancellation of sales support • Kadkhudayan v WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd [2001] FCA 645; [2001] ATPR 41-822. The respondent was found not to have engaged in resale price maintenance when it withdrew sale support to a wholesaler who was selling its cigarettes at less than the respondent’s price. Upheld on appeal: Kadkhudayan v WD & HO Wills (Aust) Ltd [2002] FCAFC 110; [2002] ATPR 41-874. • TPC v Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-071; TPC v Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 601; [1992] ATPR 41-163. The Commission failed to prove that the respondent had engaged in resale price maintenance in relation to the wholesaling of wine in Western Australia when the respondent withdrew promotional allowances from a wholesaler who had marketed the respondent’s wines at prices cheaper than the respondent’s prices. • TPC v Malleys Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 250; [1979] ATPR 40-118. The marketing manager for a large whitegoods manufacturer, in an attempt to meet increased competition, introduced a marketing scheme that provided retailers who sold at the recommended price with certain incentive allowances. A penalty of $10,000 was imposed. [CCA.48.220] Cases: retailers/distributors – food • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215. The ACCC failed to establish that the respondent had attempted to induce a bread manufacturer to engage in resale price maintenance in relation to other supermarkets when it adopted a policy of not stocking bread from manufacturers who gave other supermarkets a better price than they gave the respondent. • ACCC v Sundaze Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1642; [2000] ATPR 41-736. The exclusive distributor of a well-known brand of sunglasses sought to stop discounting by making it known to certain retailers that it would not supply them unless they agreed not to discount. Penalties totalling $220,000 imposed.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

515

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.48.220]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 48

[CCA.48.220] • ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 238; 145 ALR 36; [1997] ATPR 41-562. The ACCC brought proceedings against a bread manufacturer alleging that the respondent had brought pressure to bear on the manufacturer to ensure that other retailers did not sell its bread at lower prices than the respondent. The bread manufacturer admitted that it took steps to ensure that a number of its independent retailers did not sell below an agreed price. Penalties totalling $500,000 imposed on the bread manufacturer. The respondent subsequently succeeded in defending proceedings brought against it by the ACCC: see ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2001) 119 FCR 1; [2002] ATPR (Digest) 46-215.

[CCA.48.240] Cases: retailers/distributors – clothing and footwear • ACCC v Oobi Baby Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1488. The respondent, a small business designing and importing children’s clothing and toys, sold through retailers, was found to have engaged in 19 separate acts of resale price maintenance in relation to 15 retailers by stating that it would not supply retailers who sold the products at less than the recommended retail price. Penalty of $40,000 imposed. • ACCC v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1299; [2005] ATPR 42-084. The respondents admitted engaging in resale price maintenance in relation to supply of specialty lace and other products to franchisees under a franchise agreement that required franchisees to sell at the recommended retail price. Penalties of $136,000 were imposed. • Fairbairn v NCC Fashions Wholesale Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1874. The applicant obtained an interlocutory injunction when, in response to complaints by other retailers, it told the applicant to not sell its fashion products at less than the price charged by those other retailers. [CCA.48.260] Cases: retailers/distributors – petroleum • ACCC v Ampol Petroleum (Vic) Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-469. Ampol admitted nine attempts to induce the operator of one of its service stations not to sell its petrol at less than the price specified by Ampol. Penalties totalling $1.04 million were imposed. • TPC v BP Australia Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 499; 62 ALR 151; [1985] ATPR 40-638; TPC v BP Australia Ltd [1986] ATPR 40-652. An oil company was found to have engaged in resale price maintenance when one of its managers communicated to a dealer a statement of price that was likely to be understood as a price below which motor spirit was not to be sold. A penalty of $20,000 was imposed. Upheld on appeal: BP Australia Ltd v TPC (1986) 12 FCR 118; 66 ALR 148; [1986] ATPR 40-701. • TPC v Golden Fleece Petroleum Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-528. The Commission failed, on the evidence, to prove allegations of resale price maintenance made against a petroleum company in relation to its dealings with a retailer who was discounting. [CCA.48.280] Cases: retailers/distributors – motor vehicles and automotive products • TPC v Prestige Motors Pty Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-359. The WA distributor of Toyota vehicles admitted inducing or attempting to induce Toyota dealers not to advertise vehicles supplied by it at a price less than that specified by the distributor and to using a price list to be understood to state prices below which Toyotas were not to be advertised for sale. • TPC v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-772. The sales manager of a tyre distributor refused supply to a retailer who was discounting contrary to his employer’s policy. The distributor pleaded guilty to a breach of s 48 and was fined $15,000. • Peter Williamson Pty Ltd v Capitol Motors Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 257; 41 ALR 6131 TPR 309; [1982] ATPR 40-291. A motor vehicle dealer was unsuccessful in an application for an injunction to restrain a distributor from cancelling his dealership agreement on the basis of alleged resale price maintenance.

516

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 48

[CCA.48.300] Cases: retailers/distributors – health, beauty and chemical products • ACCC v Eternal Beauty Products Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1124. The respondent, the sole Australian distributor of two beauty products sold through online retailers, admitted that it had engaged in resale price maintenance when, through phone calls and emails, it asked two retailers to increase the price at which they were advertising products. Penalties totalling $90,000 were imposed. • ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79; [2007] ATPR 42-146. The respondent, a manufacturer of high quality skincare, cosmetic and herbal medicine products, admitted engaging in resale price maintenace by attempting to induce retailers not to sell its products below the list price and by issuing price lists without making it clear that the retail prices stated were recommended only. Penalties totalling $3.4 million imposed. • ACCC v Dermalogica Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 152; (2005) 215 ALR 482; [2005] ATPR 42-046. A manufacturer of premium beauty products which informed one retailer that, while it could discount products it could not discount below 10%, and discouraged another retailer from discounting, was found to have contravened s 48. Penalties totalling $250,000 were imposed. • ACCC v Chaste Corp Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] FCA 1212. The respondent marketed its slimming products through area managers to whom it sold product for resale to retailers. The agreement appointing the area managers required them not to discount the product. The respondent and officers of the company were found to have breached s 48. • ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 619. The respondent admitted engaging in resale price maintenance in two instances in relation to advertising by a retailer of its toothpaste products. Penalty of $250,000 was imposed. [CCA.48.320] Cases: retailers/distributors – electronic products • ACCC v Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1413. The respondent admitted attempting, through a number of discussions with the retailer and action to change its terms of supply, to induce a retailer not to sell the respondent’s air conditioners at below the recommended retail price. Penalties totalling $2.2 million were imposed. • ACCC v Navman Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2061; [2007] ATPR 42-208. The respondent engaged in resale price maintenance in the supply of marine equipment and in-car navigational products for more than three years. The conduct involved more than 35 individual acts of resale price maintenance, including price lists the respondent sent to its dealers containing statements discouraging the dealers from discounting their prices below those set out in the price lists; statements to dealers discouraging them from discounting products below specified prices; and threats to terminate, and subsequent termination of two dealerships for discounting. Penalties totalling $1,36 million were imposed. • ACCC v Netti Atom Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1945; [2007] ATPR 42-204. The respondent, a bicycle wholesaler, received complaints from a number of dealers that one particular dealer was selling a popular brand of bicycle, supplied by the respondent, over the internet for delivery in an unassembled state at prices below the recommended retail price. The respondent sent a letter to each dealer disapproving of the particular brand of bicycles being sold over the internet and stating that the relevant bikes “listed on Dealer websites should be listed at no-less than the recommended retail price as set out on our Dealer Price List. Dealers that list Scott Bikes at below recommended retail prices run the risk of not being included as a Dealer for the following season.” Penalties totalling $121,250 were imposed. • ACCC v TEAC Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1859; [2007] ATPR 42-201. The respondent admitted that it had engaged in resale price maintenance in making it known to a retailer that it would not supply the retailer with TEAC electronic goods unless the retailer agreed “not to advertise for sale” TEAC electronic goods at a retail price less than the “go price” specified by

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

517

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.48.320]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 48

[CCA.48.320] TEAC, and induced the retailer not to advertise for sale TEAC electronic goods at a retail price less than the “go price”. Penalties totalling $190,000 were imposed.

[CCA.48.340] Cases: retailers/distributors – household products • TPC v Bamix Australia Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-534. A supplier of household goods which appointed distributors on the basis that they were to sell its products at the selling price specified by the supplier admitted breaching the resale price maintenance provisions. Penalties totalling $132,000 were imposed. • TPC v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 197; [1985] ATPR 40-516; TPC v The Heating Centre Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40-563. A distributor of combustion heaters was found to have breached s 48 in refusing to supply heaters to a retailer who had discounted the product, even though the retailer had never bought the product direct from the distributor. Penalties totalling $43,500 were imposed on the distributor and its managing director: upheld in part on appeal The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v TPC (1986) 9 FCR 153; 65 ALR 429; [1986] ATPR 40-674. • TPC v Simpson Pope Ltd [1980] FCA 83; (1980) 47 FLR 334 (note); 30 ALR 544; [1980] TPRS 315.1; [1980] ATPR 40-169. A whitegoods manufacturer, who brought varying degrees of pressure to bear on three retailers to make them increase their prices to the recommended retail price, was found to have breached s 48. Penalties totalling $65,000 were imposed. The respondent was subsequently sued for damages and damages of $52,373 were awarded: Hubbards Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 430; 1 TPR 354; 41 ALR 509; [1982] ATPR 40-295. The respondent was also subsequently sued for damages by another retailer and damages of $160,000 were assessed: Parrys Department Store (WA) Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd (1983) 76 FLR 60; [1983] ATPR 40-393. [CCA.48.360] Cases: retailers/distributors – sports goods • ACCC v Telwater Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 263; [2009] ATPR 42-276. The respondent, a manufacturer of boats, was found to have engaged in resale price maintenance when it provided dealers with a recommended retail price for its boats but also a document that stated that dealers were expected to advertise the boats at that price, and made it known that it would not provide advertising support to dealers who advertised at a lower price. Penalties totalling $238,000 imposed. • ACCC v Skins Compression Garments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 710. The respondent admitted engaging in resale price maintenance in inducing a retailer to remove an advertising board that advertised the respondent’s products at 20% off. Penalties totalling $134,000 imposed. • ACCC v Hobie Cat Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 402; [2008] ATPR 42-225. The respondent admitted engaging in resale price maintenance when it entered agreements with dealers who sold its sailing craft that provided for the dealers to comply with the respondent’s recommended resale price. Penalty of $168,000 imposed. [CCA.48.380]

Further reading

Miller, “The Prohibition on Resale Price Maintanance – from Controversial Beginnings to Redundancy?” (2014) 22 AJCCL 224; Brebner, “Resale Price Maintenance – The Need for Further Reform” (2001) 9 Trade Practices Law Journal 19; Landrigan, “Vertical Price and Non-Price Restraints in Australia and the US: A Comparative Analysis” (1997) 25 ABLR 312; Wang & Davison, “Resale Price Maintenance: Is the Per Se Prohibition Justified?” (1992) 14 Adelaide Law Review 35; Meese, “Property Rights and Intrabrand Restraints” (2003) 89 Cornell Law Review 553. For a general commentary on the resale price maintenance provisions see Schreiber, Taylor and Donald, Resale Price Maintenance (The Law Book Co Ltd, 1972); Heydon, Trade Practices Law (Lawbook Co., subscription).

518

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

49

s 49

Dual listed company arrangements that affect competition

(1) [Provisions of dual company arrangements that lessen competition] A corporation must not: (a) make a dual listed company arrangement if a provision of the proposed arrangement has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or (b) give effect to a provision of a dual listed company arrangement if that provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition. Note: Conduct that would otherwise contravene this section can be authorised under subsection 88(8B). Exception (2) The making by a corporation of a dual listed company arrangement that contains a provision that has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition does not contravene this section if: (a) the arrangement is subject to a condition that the provision will not come into force unless and until the corporation is granted an authorisation to give effect to the provision; and (b) the corporation applies for the grant of such an authorisation within 14 days after the arrangement is made. However, this subsection does not permit the corporation to give effect to such a provision. Meaning of competition (3) For the purposes of this section, competition, in relation to a provision of a dual listed company arrangement or of a proposed dual listed company arrangement, means competition in any market in which: (a) a corporation that is a party to the arrangement or would be a party to the proposed arrangement; or (b) any body corporate related to such a corporation; supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, apart from the provision, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. (4) [Cumulative effect of provisions can lessen competition] For the purposes of the application of this section in relation to a particular corporation, a provision of a dual listed company arrangement or of a proposed dual listed company arrangement is taken to have, or to be likely to have, the effect of substantially lessening competition if that provision and any one or more of the following provisions: (a) the other provisions of that arrangement or proposed arrangement; (b) the provisions of any other contract, arrangement or understanding or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding to which the corporation or a body corporate related to the corporation is or would be a party; together have or are likely to have that effect. [S 49 reinsrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 6 item 7; rep Act 88 of 1995, s 14; am Act 81 of 1977]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

519

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.49.20]

SECTION 49 COMMENTARY [CCA.49.20]

Background

Section 49 originally contained a prohibition against price discrimination in relation to the supply or acquisition of goods of like grade and quality where the discrimination was likely to have an adverse effect on competition. The provision was repealed in 1995. The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006 inserted a new s 49 designed to regulate the behaviour of dual listed companies, where that behaviour is likely to adversely affect competition. Section 49 applies to such companies, instead of ss 45, 46 and 46A. Authorisation is available: see s 88(8A) to (8C). 50

Prohibition of acquisitions that would result in a substantial lessening of competition

(1) [No acquisitions that lessen competition] A corporation must not directly or indirectly: (a) acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate; or (b) acquire any assets of a person; if the acquisition would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market. Note: The corporation will not be prevented from making the acquisition if the corporation is granted a clearance or an authorisation for the acquisition under Division 3 of Part VII: see subsections 95AC(2) and 95AT(2). [Subs (1) am Act 184 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1, with effect from 6 Feb 2012; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10; subst Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 49 of 1991, s 3; Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(1AA) [Repealed] [Subs (1AA) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; insrt Act 49 of 1991, s 3]

(1A) [Repealed] [Subs (1A) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 49 of 1991, s 3; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(2) [No direct or indirect acquisitions] A person must not directly or indirectly: (a) acquire shares in the capital of a corporation; or (b) acquire any assets of a corporation; if the acquisition would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market. Note: The person will not be prevented from making the acquisition if the person is granted a clearance or an authorisation for the acquisition under Division 3 of Part VII: see subsections 95AC(2) and 95AT(2). [Subs (2) am Act 184 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1, with effect from 6 Feb 2012; Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11; subst Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 49 of 1991, s 3; Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(2AA) [Repealed] [Subs (2AA) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; insrt Act 49 of 1991, s 3]

(2A) [Repealed] [Subs (2A) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 49 of 1991, s 3; Act 168 of 1986, s 3 and Sch 1; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(2AB) [Repealed] [Subs (2AB) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; insrt Act 49 of 1991, s 3]

(2B) [Repealed] [Subs (2B) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 49 of 1991, s 3; insrt Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

520

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

(2C) [Repealed] [Subs (2C) rep Act 222 of 1992, s 6; insrt Act 8 of 1986, s 3]

(3) [Determining if acquisition lessens competition] Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) in determining whether the acquisition would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market, the following matters must be taken into account: (a) the actual and potential level of import competition in the market; (b) the height of barriers to entry to the market; (c) the level of concentration in the market; (d) the degree of countervailing power in the market; (e) the likelihood that the acquisition would result in the acquirer being able to significantly and sustainably increase prices or profit margins; (f) the extent to which substitutes are available in the market or are likely to be available in the market; (g) the dynamic characteristics of the market, including growth, innovation and product differentiation; (h) the likelihood that the acquisition would result in the removal from the market of a vigorous and effective competitor; (i) the nature and extent of vertical integration in the market. [Subs (3) subst Act 222 of 1992, s 6; am Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(4) [Contract for share acquisition commences after authorization] Where: (a) a person has entered into a contract to acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate or assets of a person; (b) the contract is subject to a condition that the provisions of the contract relating to the acquisition will not come into force unless and until the person has been granted a clearance or an authorization to acquire the shares or assets; and (c) the person applied for the grant of such a clearance or an authorization before the expiration of 14 days after the contract was entered into; the acquisition of the shares or assets shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as having taken place in pursuance of the contract before: (d) the application for the clearance or authorization is disposed of; or (e) the contract ceases to be subject to the condition; whichever first happens. [Subs (4) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 12–14; Act 222 of 1992, s 6; Act 17 of 1986, s 18]

(5) [Disposal of application for clearance] For the purposes of subsection (4), an application for a clearance shall be taken to be disposed of: (a) in a case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection does not apply—at the expiration of 14 days after the period in which an application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of the determination by the Commission of the application for the clearance; or (b) if an application is made to the Tribunal for a review of the determination by the Commission of the application for the clearance—at the expiration of 14 days after the date of the making by the Tribunal of a determination on the review. [Subs (5) am Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 items 15 and 16]

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

521

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50 (5A) [Disposal of application for authorisation] For the purposes of subsection (4), an application for an authorisation is taken to be disposed of 14 days after the day the Tribunal makes a determination on the application. [Subs (5A) insrt Act 131 of 2006, s 3 and Sch 1 item 17]

(6) [Definition: market] In this section: market means a (a) (b) (c) (d)

market for goods or services in: Australia; or a State; or a Territory; or a region of Australia.

[Def am Act 184 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1 item 2, with effect from 6 Feb 2012; Act 63 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1 item 1] [Subs (6) insrt Act 222 of 1992, s 6] [S 50 am Act 184 of 2011; Act 131 of 2006; Act 63 of 2001; Act 222 of 1992; Act 49 of 1991; Act 168 of 1986; Act 17 of 1986; Act 8 of 1986; subst Act 81 of 1977, s 27]

SECTION 50 COMMENTARY Context ............................................................................................................................................. [CCA.50.20] Proposals for Change ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.40] Summary .......................................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.60] Extraterritorial operation ................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.80] Concept: directly or indirectly acquire ............................................................................................ [CCA.50.100] Concept: likely effect ...................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.120] Mergers – the Effect on Competition ............................................................................................. [CCA.50.140] Merger factors – Actual and potential level of import competition in the market .......................... [CCA.50.160] Merger factors – The height of barriers to entry to the market ..................................................... [CCA.50.180] Merger factors – Level of concentration in the market .................................................................. [CCA.50.200] Merger factors – Degree of countervailing power in the market ................................................... [CCA.50.220] Merger factors – Likelihood of significant and sustainable increased prices or profit margins .... [CCA.50.240] Merger factors – Available substitutes ........................................................................................... [CCA.50.260] Merger factors – The dynamic characteristics of the market ........................................................ [CCA.50.280] Merger factors – Removal of a vigorous and effective competitor ............................................... [CCA.50.300] Merger factors – Vertical integration .............................................................................................. [CCA.50.320] Concept: hypothetical monopolist test ........................................................................................... [CCA.50.340] Concept: substantially .................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.360] Concept: identifying the market ..................................................................................................... [CCA.50.380] Mergers and Coordinated Effects .................................................................................................. [CCA.50.400] Mergers and Unilateral Effects ...................................................................................................... [CCA.50.420] Concept: body corporate ............................................................................................................... [CCA.50.440] Concept: person ............................................................................................................................. [CCA.50.460] Onus and standard of proof ........................................................................................................... [CCA.50.480] Primary production ......................................................................................................................... [CCA.50.500] Authorisation .................................................................................................................................. [CCA.50.520] Informal merger clearances ........................................................................................................... [CCA.50.540] Formal merger clearances ............................................................................................................. [CCA.50.560] Penalties ........................................................................................................................................ [CCA.50.580] Private party injunction application ................................................................................................ [CCA.50.600] Exemption: primary products ......................................................................................................... [CCA.50.620] ACCC merger guidelines ............................................................................................................... [CCA.50.640] Herfindahl-Hirschman Index .......................................................................................................... [CCA.50.660]

522

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

ACCC merger review process guidelines – informal merger clearance ....................................... ACCC merger review process guidelines – formal merger clearance .......................................... Cases ............................................................................................................................................. Further reading ..............................................................................................................................

[CCA.50.20]

s 50 [CCA.50.680] [CCA.50.700] [CCA.50.720] [CCA.50.740]

Context

Although the impact of mergers and acquisitions has long been recognised as a method of aggregating market power, it was not until the Trade Practices Act 1974 that Australian competition laws dealt with mergers. As the International Competition Network has observed: Mergers consolidate the ownership and control of business assets. … they can enhance corporate – and wider economic – performance by improving the efficiency with which business assets are used. On one view the threat of take-over can be a spur to efficiency, but on another the managerial pursuit of mergers can be a distraction from it. … Most mergers raise no serious prospect of an increase in market power. … With some actual and proposed mergers, however, there is a serious prospect of a detriment to competition. The original merger provision prohibited acquisitions, directly or indirectly, of shares in the capital, or assets of, a body corporate, where the acquisition was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market for goods or services. However, in a move to limit the scope of the merger provision, in 1977 the merger test was changed to a “control or dominate” test. Under that test, an acquisition, directly or indirectly, of any shares in the capital, or any assets, of a target was prohibited only if, as a result of the acquisition, either: • the acquiring corporation would be likely to be in a position to control or dominate a market, or • where the corporation was already in a position to control or dominate a market, the target was likely to be a competitor of the corporation and the acquisition would be likely to substantially strengthen the power of the corporation to control or dominate that market. A proposal to revert to the substantial lessening of competition test in 1984 was not proceeded with. Instead, the “control or dominate” test was changed to a “dominance test”. Finally, in 1993 the dominance test was replaced and the Act returned to the “effect on competition” test that is now the test under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. For further information about the context for and exploration of the Australian position in relation to mergers, see Miller’s Australian Competition Law and Policy (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2011). [CCA.50.40]

Proposals for Change

On 24 November 2015, the Government announcedthat it supports the recommendation of the Competition Policy Review (Harper Review) that the processes for formal merger clearance and merger authorisation should be combined and unnecessary restrictions and requirements that may have deterred their use should be removed. The Review suggested the changes should be settled in consultation with business, competition law practitioners and the ACCC but should include the following elements: • the ACCC should be the decision-maker at first instance, rather than the Tribunal; • the ACCC should be empowered to approve a merger if it is satisfied that the merger does not substantially lessen competition or it is satisfied that the merger results in public benefits that outweigh the anti-competitive detriments; • the formal process should not be subject to any prescriptive information requirements, but the ACCC should be empowered to require the production of business and market information(thereby removing the ambiguity over the ACCC’s use of s 155 in these cases); • the formal process should be subject to strict timelines that cannot be extended except with the consent of the merger parties;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

523

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.40]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.40] • decisions of the ACCC should be subject to review by the Tribunal under a process also governed by strict timelines; and • reviews by the Tribunal should be based on the material that was before the ACCC, but the Tribunal should have the discretion to allow a party to adduce further evidence, or to call and question a witness, if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient reason to do so.

In accepting the recommendations, the Government stated that it considers that overall the merger provisions are working effectively. It said that: • the informal merger approval process works quickly and efficiently for a majority of mergers; • issues of transparency and timeliness arise with the informal process when dealing with more complex and contentious matters but addressing those issues by changing the informal process could undermine the benefits of that process. In relation to the formal merger review process, the Government stated that it will develop exposure draft legislation on changes. In relation to the informal merger review process, the Government said that it: notes its expectation that the ACCC will take into account this recommendation in performing its role and meeting its responsibilities, particularly in relation to delivering more timely and transparent decisions. The ACCC has recently committed to the Government to improve stakeholder engagement and understanding of ACCC merger decisions, including through changes in relation to detailed engagement strategy planning, engagement with a broader range of stakeholders in the course of a merger review, trial of a third party consultation conference, and better communication of decisions through public documents that explain the ACCC’s merger process and analysis to the broader community, including small business and consumer stakeholders. The legislation had not been introduced by 1 January 2017. [CCA.50.60]

Summary

Acquisitions by a corporation of either: • shares in a body corporate; or • assets of a body corporate or a natural person, that have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in any market for goods or services in Australia or a State, Territory or region in Australia are prohibited by s 50(1) unless cleared by the ACCC or Australian Competition Tribunal or authorised by the Tribunal: see [CCA.50.520], [CCA.50.560]. As far as acquisitions by individuals are concerned, s 50(2) extends the scope of the merger provisions by applying them to acquisitions by individuals as well as corporations and bodies corporate. For constitutional reasons, however, the prohibition against such persons making acquisitions in s 50 relates only to acquisitions of shares in or the assets of a corporation. However, the State and Territory uniform Competition Policy Reform Acts apply the Sch 1 version of s 50 to all persons. This section provides the framework for assessment of mergers, but for practical reasons mergers are rarely challenged in the courts. It is the ACCC, applying this section and its Merger Guidelines at [MG.20] that determines whether or not most mergers pass the test, under an informal merger clearance procedure explained at [CCA.50.540]. A counterfactual approach is used in determining whether or not a merger or acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition. That test involves a comparison between the circumstances that are likely to prevail in the future if the acquisition does not proceed and the circumstances that are likely to prevail if the acquisition does proceed. This is referred to as the “future without” and “future with” test. In a clearance context, the essential question is whether, applying that test, the effect of the merger is likely to be a substantial lessening of competition in any relevant market. In an authorisation context, the essential question is whether, comparing the two scenarios and taking account of public benefits likely to accrue from the merger, it should be permitted to proceed.

524

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

The section sets out a non-exclusive list of matters which “must be taken into account” in determining whether an acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition in a market. The list includes relevant economic considerations such as barriers to entry, the impact of actual or potential imports, the degree of market concentration, whether the merger would remove a vigorous and effective competitor and the likelihood that the result of the merger would be significant and sustainable price increases: s 50(3). It is not for the court to strike a balance between the economic advantages that might follow, from economic efficiencies that might come from the merger against the economic detriments. All that the court can consider is whether or not the effect is to substantially lessen competition. Economic advantages and detriments and other public interest considerations are matters for the Australian Competition Tribunal on an authorisation application: Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1994] FCA 1039; (1994) 49 FCR 211; 121 ALR 241; [1994] ATPR 41-304 at 42,098 (ATPR). There are machinery provisions to ensure that no breach of the section occurs where the acquisition is subject to a clearance or authorisation, but the application for clearance or authorisation must be made within 14 days of the contract being entered into for the subsections to apply: s 50(4) and (5). The term “market” is explained at [CCA.4E.60] – [CCA.4E.260] and [CCA.50.340]. Section 50(6) makes it clear that the term “market”, when used in s 50, means a market for goods or services in Australia or in a State, or Territory or region of Australia. The Australian position is close to the behavioural approach used in the United States and Canada, both of which have an “effect on competition” test for regulating mergers. [CCA.50.80]

Extraterritorial operation

The territorial nexus with Australia for the purposes of s 50 is derived from the statutory requirement in s 5(1) that the corporation that is the subject of the prohibition must be incorporated or carrying on business within Australia and that the conduct must affect a market in Australia. The share in or assets of which are being acquired, need not be in a body corporate incorporated in or carrying on business or otherwise present in Australia: TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001 (Lockhart J). However, s 50A sets out the process by which acquisitions outside Australia are to be assessed and dealt with if the acquisition is likely to have an anticompetitive effect in a market in Australia: see [CCA.50A.20]. [CCA.50.100]

Concept: directly or indirectly acquire

The word “acquire” in s 50(1) refers to acquisition in the sense of “obtaining ownership of any legal or equitable interest in”: TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001. See also s 4(4). A “direct” acquisition is one in which the corporation makes the acquisition itself, but what an “indirect” acquisition involves has not been settled. In TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001 Lockhart J expressed the view that an indirect acquisition involved an acquisition by one party acting through another party as its agent or otherwise for the first party as principal. In other words, in order to make an acquisition within the meaning of s 50 the party concerned must acquire some legal or beneficial interest in the relevant shares or assets. The consequence of this interpretation, as Lockhart J observed, was that the words “directly or indirectly” in s 50 were superfluous. In Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v TPC [1989] ATPR 40-932, Davies J had expressed a contrary view. In His Honour’s view the words “acquire directly or indirectly” in s 50 encompass all forms of acquisition including situations where assets are acquired in an indirect way, such as through the interposition of a wholly-owned subsidiary. The other members of the court made no comment on this aspect of the matter.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

525

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.100]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.100]

In TPC v Gillette Company (No 1) (1993) 45 FCR 366; 118 ALR 271; [1993] ATPR 41-267, Burchett J agreed with the approach taken by Davies J, referring to US and EU authority to support that view because as His Honour pointed out, it is well recognised that s 50 drew on sources in the US and Europe. As the creation of an option over shares creates an equitable interest in those shares, the granting of an option involves an acquisition pursuant to s 4(4): TPC v Arnotts Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 657; 16 IPR 417; [1990] ATPR 41-062. [CCA.50.120]

Concept: likely effect

Section 50 is enlivened in two circumstances: if a proposed acquisition would either have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a relevant market, or be likely to have that effect: see TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1; 58 ALR 423; [1985] ATPR 40-512. As Emmett J observed in ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967, where the court is considering an injunction to restrain a proposed merger the only enquiry that needs to be made is as to whether the proposed acquisition would be likely to have the necessary effect. Of course, where the court is considering a completed merger, for instance in a divestiture or damages claim, the actual effect of the merger will be more relevant. The word “likely” has various shades of meaning. It may mean “probable” in the sense of “more probable than not”, “more than a 50 per cent chance”. It may mean “material risk” as seen by a reasonable man “such as might happen”. It may mean “some possibility” more than a remote or bare chance or it may mean that the conduct engaged in is inherently of such a character that it would ordinarily cause the effect specified: Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1979) 42 FLR 331; 27 ALR 367; [1979] ATPR 40-138 at 339 (FLR) per Bowen CJ. The meaning of the term in s 50 has not been settled, although in AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966, French J expressed the view that the term had the same meaning as in s 45 and other provisions: see [CCA.45.220]. His Honour took the view that, having regard to the statutory context, the correct construction is that “likely” refers to a significant finite probability or “a real chance” rather than “more probable than not”. Two separate questions concerning the application of the term “likely” arise in s 50. First, what is the likely counterfactual against which the merger is to be assessed – what is the future likely to be with and without the merger? The second is: given the counterfactual, is an adverse effect on competition likely? In ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151 Yates J expressed the view, but did not decide, that the “real chance” test applies to determine both questions, Buchanan J decided that the relevant test should be the balance of probabilities test (“more probable than not”) and Finn J declined to express a view on the matter. At first instance (ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967) Emmett J considered that, where the ACCC puts forward multiple counterfactuals it is not entitled to succeed unless the Court concludes, first, that it is more probable than not that one of the ACCC’s counterfactuals will come to pass if the proposed acquisition does not proceed, and secondly, that there is a real chance that, if the proposed acquisition does proceed, it would result in a substantial lessening of competition compared to the scenario in which one of those counterfactuals comes to pass. In AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966, French J explained the “real chance” test as follows: The judgment [the term “likely”] requires ... must not set the bar so high as effectively to expose acquiring corporations to a finding of contravention simply on the basis of possibilities, however plausible they may seem, generated by economic theory alone. On the other hand it must not set the bar so low as effectively to allow all acquisitions to proceed save those with the most obvious, direct and dramatic effects upon competition. Decisions on whether or not an adverse effect on competition is likely must be made in the real world. The assessment of the risk or real chance of a substantial lessening of competition cannot rest upon speculation or theory: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966, (French J). As Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ noted in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53

526

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

at [41]: The views and practices of those within an industry can often be most instructive not only on the question of achieving a realistic definition of the market, but also on the question of assessing the quality of particular competitive conduct in relation to the level of competition and the impact of its cessation. In ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967 Emmett J adopted the above approach, but went on to consider a second question – whether the “real chance” test applies to the identification of counterfactuals, or only to the consequences of counterfactuals that are proved on the balance of probabilities. His Honour considered whether the ACCC was required to show that: • there is a real chance that a particular counterfactual will come to pass, and that, compared to the scenario in which that counterfactual comes to pass, there is a real chance that the proposed acquisition would result in a substantial lessening of competition; • there is a real chance that a particular counterfactual will come to pass, and that, compared to the scenario in which that counterfactual comes to pass, it is more probable than not that the proposed acquisition would result in a substantial lessening of competition; or • it is more probable than not that a particular counterfactual will come to pass, and that, compared to the scenario in which that counterfactual comes to pass, there is a real chance that the proposed acquisition would result in a substantial lessening of competition. Emmett J concluded that the ACCC had to satisfy the Court that its counterfactual was more probable than any competing hypothesis advanced to suggest that there is no real chance of the merger substantially lessening competition. Where the ACCC puts forward multiple counterfactuals it is not entitled to succeed unless the Court concludes, first, that it is more probable than not that one of the ACCC’s counterfactuals will come to pass if the proposed acquisition does not proceed, and secondly, that there is a real chance that, if the proposed acquisition does proceed, it would result in a substantial lessening of competition compared to the scenario in which one of those counterfactuals comes to pass. [CCA.50.140]

Mergers – the Effect on Competition

The central question to be addressed is whether or not the acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition in any market. This requires a detailed analysis of the relevant market or markets to determine the likely competitive outcome of the merger. If, looking at a merger yet to be consummated, that outcome is likely to be a reduction of competition which is meaningful or relevant to the competitive process. (“real” or “of substance”), then the merger will contravene s 50: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966. In determining whether or not the merger is likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition the future state of the relevant market, with and without the merger, needs to be considered: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966. In considering the future, assumptions will need to be made about what is likely to happen in the future, but given the penalties that apply for a breach of s 50, this needs to be more than hypothesis or conjecture. The party asserting what the future might be bears the onus of establishing the position asserted, although whether the applicable standard is the balance of probabilities has not been settled: see [CCA.50.480]. The term “competition” is explained at [CCA.4.140]. Competition is the antithesis of market power and accordingly an important question is whether a merger is likely to increase market concentration and market power. This inevitably leads to market definition issues as the starting point in any analysis: see [CCA.50.540]. Section 50(3) sets out the factors to be taken into account in determining whether or not a merger is likely to substantially lessen competition. Each is discussed separately in the following annotations. Those annotations are based on the decision in AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317;

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

527

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.140]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.140]

[2003] ATPR 41-966 (French J), the ACCC’s Merger Guidelines and selected ACCC merger decisions. Unlike other parts of the Act, much of the jurisprudence in merger cases is to be drawn from ACCC informal clearance decisions because major mergers are usually submitted to the ACCC for informal clearance and few cases reach the courts. Each ACCC merger decision turns on its own facts. [CCA.50.160]

Merger factors – Actual and potential level of import competition in the market

Australia is a relatively open economy with little or no import tariffs, so actual and potential import competition is important in considering whether a merger is likely to give the merged entity increased market power. However import tariffs and quotas are not the only basis for barriers to entry by imports. There may be non-tariff barriers such as availability of supply, intellectual property or other licencing requirements, transportation costs, transportation difficulties, and local standards that inhibit the potential impact of imports. As the ACCC has pointed out, in some markets “buy Australian” policies may reserve a significant percentage of sales for domestic suppliers. In others, imports may be sporadic to overcome shortages in domestic supply but would be considered a poor substitute for domestic supply on a regular basis. In some markets there is limited importing by wholesalers or retailers, but expansion may require significant investment in distribution facilities: Merger Guidelines 7.36 – 7.37, see [MG.7.80]. Examples: • Expedia/Wotif (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 13 January 2015). The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition of a local online travel and accommodation booking service having concluded that other such services that operated globally and had entered the Australian market, provided strong competition. • BlueScope Steel Ltd/Hills Holdings Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 4 August 2014). The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition of a steel business from Hills, having concluded that, were BlueScope to attempt to foreclose rival steel and tube distributors’ access to structural pipe and tube products, those distributors would likely be able to defeat the attempted foreclosure by obtaining supply from imports or alternative domestic manufacturers. • Pacific Brands/Joyce (ACCC Competition Assessment 22 March 2005). The ACCC concluded that the merger would be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in markets for the supply of flexible slabstock polyurethane foam products in Australia. One reason was that there were minimal imports of foam in Australia due to the low value and high volume of the product. Although some imports of finished products were entering Australia, they had not constrained the parties and were not likely to constrain the merged entity. • PMP/McPherson’s (ACCC Competition Assessment 27 August 2007). The parties proposed to merge their book printing businesses. Although there was import competition only a small proportion of Australian publishers had mono books in the 5,000+ copies range printed overseas because of the 30/90 day rule under the Copyright Act 1968, which provides protection from parallel importation for books published in Australia within 30 days of being published overseas, management and inventory risk and timeliness for time sensitive fiction works. Import competition was not regarded as a significant restraint if the merger proceeded. [CCA.50.180]

Merger factors – The height of barriers to entry to the market

The Explanatory Memorandum to the 1986 Bill that introduced these factors into the Act described this well-known economic factor as “any feature of a market that places an efficient prospective entrant at a significant disadvantage compared with incumbent firms, including, for example, the presence of economies of scale or scope, control over essential inputs or government regulations which restrict entry into the market.”. The term “barrier to entry” does not appear to have a settled meaning in economics, but the Tribunal has taken it to mean barriers that may be either structural, based on exogenously determined market characteristics, or endogenous, being the result of the incumbent’s strategic behaviour to deter entry: Re Chime Communications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 234 FLR 210; [2009] ACompT 2. The Tribunal

528

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

s 50

described each, and the assessment that is to be made, as follows: Structural barriers are based on cost structures, such as economies of scale, switching costs, demand characteristics (eg preferences for differentiated products), access to information and legal restrictions (eg patents or environmental regulations). Strategic barriers include limit pricing and general entry deterrence, advertising, targeted innovation, product proliferation, expansion of capacity, predatory responses to entry and any other targeted action that would “raise a rival’s costs”. Consequential variations in both market share and market concentration over time as entry occurs must also be examined. The Tribunal is of opinion that any assessment of the effect of barriers to entry, in a forward-looking sense, must include a comprehensive assessment of the current structural and behavioural characteristics of the market and firms at issue, and of how past conduct has shaped this structural and behavioural environment. The term also refers to barriers to exit, including high “sunk” costs. These may include legal and regulatory barriers such as licensing requirements, planning or environmental controls or industry standards, scarce resources (whether physical such as raw materials or of an intellectual property nature), economies of scale or scope held by incumbents that a new entrant may find it difficult to achieve, brand loyalty to established brands, or the likely threat of retaliatory action by incumbents. Examples: • Peregrine Corp/ BP Australia Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 15 December 2014). This application involved the acquisition of 25 petrol retail sites in South Australia, including in local areas in which the applicant already had a significant presence. The ACCC concluded that barriers to entry in petrol retail in metropolitan Adelaide were high due to the unavailability of suitable land for new market entrants, or the expansion of existing participants into new locations. The acquisition was cleared after the applicant gave undertakings to dispose of some sites. • Sonic Healthcare Ltd/Healthscope Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 28 August 2013). The ACCC decided to oppose in part the merger of pathology businesses. It found that there were material sunk costs associated with establishing and expanding a referral base and pathology testing capacity and that there were economies of scale, both in collecting and processing specimens that would deter small scale entry, except on a “niche” basis. The ACCC also found that pathology providers face substantial impediments to a timely expansion of their referral base, which is necessary for any investment in pathology collecting and testing capacity to be viable. [CCA.50.200] Merger factors – Level of concentration in the market In assessing whether or not a proposed acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition in the market, the existing level of concentration and any increase in that concentration likely as a result of reduction in the number of competitors or the accrual of significant additional market share to one of them, will be relevant because an increase in concentration may increase the merged firm’s market power or increase the scope for coordinated conduct among remaining competitors. Examples: • BlueScope Steel Ltd/Hills Holdings Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 4 August 2014). The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition of a steel business from Hills, having concluded that, were BlueScope to attempt to foreclose rival steel and tube distributors’ access to structural pipe and tube products those distributors would likely be able to defeat the attempted foreclosure by obtaining supply from alternative domestic manufacturers or imports. • Carsales.com Ltd/Telstra Corporation Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 13 June 2013). The acquisition of the Trading Post classified business by the owner of the largest online automotive classified site was opposed by the ACCC on a number of grounds including that it would result in the removal of Trading Post as one of the closest and most effective competitors. • Nestlé S.A/Pfizer Inc (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 May 2013). The ACCC considered that the proposed acquisition of Pfizer’s infant nutrition business would result in a

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

529

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

[CCA.50.200]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.200] significant increase in concentration in already concentrated markets, where barriers to entry and expansion are high. The proposed acquisition would have led to the consolidation of two of the three major suppliers in two markets with the merged entity accounting for approximately 60% of the share of sales in one and 50% in the other.

[CCA.50.220]

Merger factors – Degree of countervailing power in the market

The Explanatory Memorandum to the 1986 Bill that introduced these factors into the Act described this concept as “the extent to which market power held by the merged firm could be offset by market power held by customers or suppliers”. That power may not be limited to direct economic power but may be exercised through price sensitive regulators or even political mechanisms, particularly where essential facilities are concerned: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 at [354]. Countervailing power exists where counterparties to transactions in the relevant market (customers in relation to a supplier or suppliers in relation to a customer) have sufficient power to act independently of the merging parties either because of their own market power, or because the counterparties could respond effectively to an attempt by the merging parties to exert market power through some other means such as imports or vertical integration. Examples: • Baxter International Inc. – proposed acquisition of Gambro AB (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 28 November 2013). The ACCC considered that customers of kidney failure treatment products would not be able to exercise countervailing power to constrain the merged firm even though those customers were often very large public health authorities that purchased significant volumes of the products. • Hexion/Orica (ACCC Competition Assessment; 10 January 2007). The proposal was for Hexion to acquire Orica’s formaldehyde resins business. The ACCC determined that one of the relevant markets was the market for amonio resins. The acquisition would reduce the number of manufacturers in the relevant regional market from three to two. However, the ACCC concluded that there would not be a substantial lessening of competition in that market because, taking account of their size and demand both within and outside the relevant geographic region, customers would be likely to continue to have a degree of bargaining power post acquisition. In George Weston/Good Stuff Bakery (ACCC Competition Assessment 16 March 2007), an acquisition in the wholesale market for the manufacture and distribution of bread in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales the ACCC concluded that large supermarket chains were likely to possess significant countervailing power and therefore constrain the merged firm exercising market power. [CCA.50.240]

Merger factors – Likelihood of significant and sustainable increased prices or profit margins As the ACCC has pointed out, sustained price increases above competitive levels are the most obvious and visible manifestation of market power. If a merger facilitates sustained increases in prices or profit margins above competitive levels, this will be indicative of an increase in market power and a reduction in competition, even if the merged firm does not exercise that power by increasing prices. Examples: • Perpetual Ltd/The Trust Company Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 December 2013). The ACCC concluded, in relation to one of the markets considered, that the merged entity’s ability to unilaterally raise price or reduce service in relation to custodial services was sufficiently constrained by a combination of competition from existing major and minor competitors, the credible threat of timely new entry and expansion by incumbents if the merged entity were to raise price or reduce service and countervailing power of customers. • PMP/McPherson’s (ACCC Competition Assessment 27 August 2007). One of the ACCC’s reasons for opposing the merger was that the ACCC considered the merged firm would have the

530

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

ability and incentive to significantly increase prices and/or profit margins on longer print runs and time sensitive printing. On the other hand, in Suncorp Metway/Promina (ACCC Competition Assessment 12 January 2007) the ACCC had to consider whether to oppose the merger based on the merged firm being able to significantly and sustainably increase prices or profit margins in the relatively concentrated state and territory based markets for motor vehicle insurance. The ACCC considered that post-acquisition there would be sufficient price and product development competition to constrain any attempt by the merged firm to raise its prices above the competitive level. [CCA.50.260]

Merger factors – Available substitutes

The availability of readily substitutable products in a market provide consumers with viable alternatives if the merged firm seeks to raise its price, but the extent to which substitutes constrain market power of the merged firm depends on how substitutable the other products are. Product differentiation, brand differentiation and availability all play a part in this assessment, as does price. Examples: • Peregrine Corp/ BP Australia Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 15 December 2014). This application involved the acquisition of 25 petrol retail sites in South Australia, including in local areas in which the applicant already had a significant presence. The ACCC concluded that barriers to entry in petrol retail in metropolitan Adelaide were high due to the unavailability of suitable land for new market entrants, or the expansion of existing participants into new locations. The acquisition was cleared after the applicant gave undertakings to dispose of some sites where there were not other retail sites in close proximity. • ABC Learning/Hutchison (ACCC Competition Assessment 11 October 2006). The ACCC decided not to oppose the merger after ABC provided a court-enforceable undertaking to divest seven long day care centres in five regional areas, mainly in Queensland. The merger involved the acquisition by ABC, a major provider of child care centres. Hutchison operated 86 centres around Australia. In most locations the merger did not cause concern because there were other centres with vacant places, but in the locations where divestiture was required that was not the case. [CCA.50.280]

Merger factors – The dynamic characteristics of the market

This factor requires a consideration of any changes in the market, whether likely to result from the merger or otherwise. Market power can be significantly affected over time depending on whether a market is growing or declining. Markets that are growing rapidly are more likely to see new entry and the erosion of market shares over time, while markets which are stagnant or reducing may see the opposite. Product innovation may see market leaders rapidly replaced, with new technology increasing supply side substitution, facilitating improved or different distribution methodologies or facilitate new small scale market entry. On the other hand, with highly differentiated products brand loyalty can inhibit change. Regulatory or technological changes can change market boundaries or lower barriers to imports or new entry in the foreseeable future. Examples: • Coca-Cola Amatil/Berri (ACCC Competition Assessment 8 October 2003). The merger involved the market for the manufacture and wholesale supply of chilled and ambient fruit juice and fruit drink. The ACCC, observing that markets which are growing rapidly are more likely to see new entry and the erosion of market shares over time, concluded that there had been minimal volume growth in the relevant market over the previous few years and a significant degree of consolidation between the larger suppliers such that the three leading firms accounted for over 70% of total sales. Although there was evidence of small or regional entry occurring to some

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

531

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.280]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.280] extent, very few new entrants had captured meaningful market shares in recent years. The ACCC also concluded that structural and strategic barriers to entry would be raised if the merger proceeded. The merger was therefore opposed.

[CCA.50.300]

Merger factors – Removal of a vigorous and effective competitor

If a merger removes a vigorous and effective competitor, even one with a small market share, this can have a significant impact on the level of competition in the market. Examples: • CSR Ltd & Boral Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 6 August 2015). The ACCC decided not to oppose a joint venture for production of clay bricks because, even though, in comparison to the status quo, the proposed joint venture would raise significant competition concerns, the ACCC was satisfied that it was likely that Boral would leave the relevant markets if the proposed joint venture did not proceed. On that basis the ACCC did not oppose the joint venture. • iSentia Pty Ltd/Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 16 April 2014). The ACCC decided not to oppose iSentia acquiring AAP’s media monitoring business because it was satisfied that, if the proposed acquisition did not proceed, AAP would cease to offer a media monitoring service in Australia. • Woolworths Ltd & Lowe’s Companies Inc/G Gay & Co stores (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 5 December 2013). In assessing the effect of the proposed acquisition on the retail market for the supply of multi-category hardware, building supplies and home improvement products in the Ballarat area, the ACCC concluded that the acquisition would remove an effective competitor in that market. • Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd/Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 31 July 2013). The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition by Virgin of a 60% interest in Tiger because it concluded that absent the acquisition Tiger would exit the market. • H J Heinz Company Australia Ltd/Rafferty’s Garden Pty Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 26 July 2013). The ACCC concluded that the acquisition would result in the removal of a close competitor and a substantial increase in concentration in already concentrated markets for infant cereals and infant snacks, where barriers to entry and expansion were also high. • Fairfax Media Ltd/Southern Independent Publishers Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 May 2011).The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition of two local newspapers because it was satisfied that in the absence of the proposed acquisition or an alternative party acquiring the publications, both would imminently cease to operate and it was unlikely that the assets could be successfully restructured. [CCA.50.320]

Merger factors – Vertical integration

Competition can be reduced where, prior to the merger, one of the firms has substantial market power at one level that it can exploit in an upstream or downstream market as a result of the merger. However, the presence of vertical integration does not necessarily mean that a substantial degree of market power exists: Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 per Mason CJ & Wilson J. In concentrated industries, where the concentration is at one or more related or integrated stages of production or distribution, the impact of this on the market power of the merged firm needs to be assessed. Vertical integration by a firm with market power at one stage of production or distribution can enable an extension of market power by the merged firm through foreclosure to competitors of supply or customers in a related market. Vertical integration may exclude or reduce the opportunity for competition at one or more levels in the supply chain. In Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 Mason CJ & Wilson J said:

532

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

[V]ertical integration may help a monopolist distinguish between customers whose demand is less and more elastic. Where consumers are able to trade amongst themselves, the monopolist cannot discriminate. By integrating vertically it may be possible for a monopolist to prevent this inter-trading. For example, power companies usually own distribution systems. This enables them to discriminate in pricing between residential and commercial users. Therefore, although vertical integration does not by itself mean that a firm has a substantial degree of market power, it may well be the means by which the firm capitalises on that market power. When considering the level of concentration it is also necessary to consider whether competitors are vertically independent of the merged firm. Where all firms are vertically integrated this may facilitate greater coordination of their activities. Examples: • Victoria Quay International RoRo Terminal (ACCC Competition Assessment 14 October 2015). The ACCC considered two separate merger clearance applications for the acquisition of a terminal at Freemantle harbour. The ACCC considered that the acquisition would provide either acquirer with the ability and incentive to exercise market power because each would be vertically integrated operators of the terminal. The ACCC did not oppose either acquisition because the parties gave an undertaking to put an open access regime in place. • Toll/Patrick (ACCC Competition Assessment 5 May 2006), one of Australia’s largest providers of transport and logistics, made a hostile takeover bid for another large Australian transport and logistics provider. The two corporations each owned 50% of National Rail, Australia’s largest rail freight corporation. The ACCC was concerned that the merged firm could, as an integrated entity, give preference to its own freight forwarding business for east-west rail over competing forwarders and shippers. The ACCC accepted a binding undertaking by Toll to divest 50% of National Rail. The Tribunal in Queensland Co-op Milling Assn Ltd, Re (1976) 25 FLR 169; 8 ALR 481; [1976] ATPR 40-012 and the court in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925; Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd [1992] FCA 35; (1992) 34 FCR 109; 106 ALR 75; [1992] ATPR 41-165 and Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313; 97 ALR 555; [1990] ATPR 41-061 reflected many of the above issues – some in slightly different language to that used in s 50(3). In undertaking an assessment of the likely position post merger, the court will give little weight to short term effects likely to be corrected by the market within a reasonable period of time: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966; Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529; 57 IPR 353; [2003] ATPR 41-947. [CCA.50.340]

Concept: hypothetical monopolist test

In assessing the likely effects of a merger the ACCC draws on the conceptual framework provided by the hypothetical monopolist test as an aid to determining relevant markets: Merger Guidelines para 4.18. That test involves determining the smallest area within which the merger could result in the merged entity imposing a small but significant non-transitory increase in price above that which would be likely to apply if there were no merger, and assuming the terms of sale of all other products remained constant. This is called the SSNIP test. The level of a relevant small but significant non-transitory increase in price is generally regarded as 5-10%; see also [1.4E.25]. The hypothetical monopolist test is of little utility unless data on costs, prices, revenue and sales over a sufficiently long period is available: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151; (2011) 198 FCR 297; [2011] ATPR 42-380 (Yates J). Consequently, although it is a useful tool for analysis, it is rarely determinative in merger review cases because of the onerous data requirements: Merger Guidelines para 4.22. Assessment of the likely effect of a merger on competition in relevant markets is not to be approached in a theoretical manner. A “real world” assessment is to be made based on meaningful, commercially

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

533

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.340]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.340]

relevant matters: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151; (2011) 198 FCR 297; [2011] ATPR 42-380 (Yates J). As Sackville J pointed out in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062; [2007] ATPR (Digest) 46-274: The reliable application of the SSNIP test requires sufficient quantitative data to permit the calculation or assessment, in particular, of the competitive price for the product in question. … [It] is the competitive price that provides the starting point for determining whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose a SSNIP. [CCA.50.360]

Concept: substantially

The effect of the merger on competition must be substantial in order to come within s 50. The meaning of the term “substantial” is explained at [CCA.45.300]. However, in AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 French J expressed the view that the term “substantially” in s 50 referred to an effect on competition that is “meaningful or relevant to the competitive process”. [CCA.50.380]

Concept: identifying the market

The starting point in assessing the effect of a merger on competition is the identification of the market or markets likely to be affected by the merger. The ACCC’s Merger Guidelines state an expectation that parties will notify of the proposed merger where the products of the parties are either substitutes or complements and the merged firm would have a post-merger market share of more than 20% in relevant markets: see [CCA.50.640]. As the High Court observed in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6; (1989) 167 CLR 177; 63 ALJR 181; 83 ALR 577; [1989] ATPR 40-925 at 187 (CLR): In identifying the relevant market, it must be borne in mind that the objective is to discover the degree of the defendant’s market power. Defining the market and evaluating the degree of power in that market are part of the same process, and it is for the sake of simplicity of analysis that the two are separated … After identifying the appropriate product level, it is necessary to describe accurately the parameters of the market in which the defendant’s product competes: too narrow a description of the market will create the appearance of more market power than in fact exists; too broad a description will create the appearance of less market power than there is. In determining the relevant market or markets against which the effect of the merger is to be assessed, the court must take account of commercial reality, not simply economic theory. The economic concept of a market must be applied in a practical way: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151 (Yates J). As the Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ noted in Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53 at [41]: The views and practices of those within an industry can often be most instructive not only on the question of achieving a realistic definition of the market, but also on the question of assessing the quality of particular competitive conduct in relation to the level of competition and the impact of its cessation. The assessment of the risk or real chance of a substantial lessening of competition cannot rest upon speculation or theory: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 , (French J). In taking into account commercial reality, “one looks not so much at the position of particular competitors as to the state or condition constituting the market or markets in question, actually or potentially … It is also to be borne in mind that, whilst actual competition must exist and be assessed in the context of a market, a market can exist if there be a potential for close competition even though none in fact exists or dealings in it are temporarily dormant or suspended.”: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460; 97 ALR 513; 19 IPR 323; [1991] ATPR 41-069 at 52,061 (ATPR). The relevant test, called the “hypothetical monopolist test”, involves determining whether a hypothetical monopolist supplier in a market could profitably impose a small but significant non-transitory increase in

534

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

s 50

price (commonly between 5% and 10%) for the supply of relevant products, or whether substitution by buyers or suppliers would make such an increase unprofitable. If the hypothetical monopolist supplier could profitably impose such an increase the market is correctly defined. If there are several products that compete within the same market, it is the cumulative switching to all those alternative products by consumers that determines whether close demand-side substitutes exist. If the cumulative effect is sufficient to make the relevant increase in price unprofitable, all close substitutes would be included in the market, even if the consumer switching to each individual product in isolation might be insufficient to make the relevant increase in price unprofitable: ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967 (Emmett J). The term “market” is explained at [CCA.4E.60] – [CCA.4E.260]. The market, for the purposes of s 50, must be a market in Australia or in a State, Territory or region of Australia. [CCA.50.400]

Mergers and Coordinated Effects

In assessing whether or not to oppose a merger, one of the factors the ACCC considers is the likelihood of coordinated effects – whether or not the merger is likely to result in an increased risk of coordination between the remaining competitors in relevant markets: see [MG.6.20]. An example of the ACCC’s consideration of this issue is Perpetual Ltd/The Trust Company Ltd (ACCC Public Competition Assessment 3 December 2013). [CCA.50.420]

Mergers and Unilateral Effects

In assessing whether or not to oppose a merger one of the factors, the ACCC considers is the likelihood of unilateral effects – whether or not the merger is likely to result in overall harm to competition by further strengthening the merged firm’s ability and incentive to raise price or reduce service in a relevant market: see [MG.5.20]. Victoria Quay International RoRo Terminal (ACCC Competition Assessment 14 October 2015) is an example. The ACCC decided not to oppose the acquisition of a port terminal that would have increased the market power of the applicant due to vertical integration, but only because the applicant gave an undertaking to put in place an open access regime at the terminal. [CCA.50.440]

Concept: body corporate

Section 50 applies to acquisitions of shares in the capital of a body corporate. The term “body corporate” is referred to in a number of provisions in the CCA but the term is not defined. The term encompasses any office or group of people recognised at law as having separate legal personality. Corporations, whether incorporated under the Corporations Law or by special statute, come within the definition. Government business enterprises established by statute as having the perpetual succession are examples of the latter. The term does not, however, encompass a body politic: Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s 22. Accordingly, States, Territories and the Commonwealth are not bodies corporate. In TPC v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 23; (1990) 22 FCR 305; 92 ALR 395; [1990] ATPR 41-001, Lockhart J expressed the view that for the purposes of s 50 the term has a wider meaning than the term “corporation”. This is consistent with the views of the High Court in R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 and Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285 relating to the term as it appears in other sections of the Act. The term was considered by Mason J in R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235; 51 ALJR 362; 13 ALR 273; [1977] ATPR 40-017; [1977] CLC 40-305 at 241 (CLR), in the context of s 79, who said: The expression “body corporate” in s 79 is not defined for the purposes of the Act. It is apparent that it has a wider meaning than the word “corporation” which appears in s 53(a) and which is defined by s 4(1), with s 51(xx) and s 122 of the Constitution very much in mind.

© 2017 THOMSON REUTERS

535

CCA ss 44ZZRA-55N

Part IV – Restrictive trade practices Division 2 – Other provisions

[CCA.50.440]

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 50

[CCA.50.440]

… It is evident then that the expression “body corporate” includes corporations other than corporations of the kind which are included in the statutory definition of “corporation”. The question was also considered by the High Court in Actors and Announcers Equity Assn of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; 56 ALJR 366; 40 ALR 609; [1982] ATPR 40-285 at 210 (CLR). Mason J ((1982) 150 CLR 169 at 210) said: Although the expression “body corporate” is not defined, s 4A(5) provides: Where a body corporate – (a) is the holding company of another body corporate; (b) is a subsidiary of another body corporate; (c) is a subsidiary of the holding company of another body corporate, that first-mentioned body corporate and that other body corporate shall, for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be related to each other. Plainly the reach of this provision extends to corporations which stand outside paras (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of “corporation”. Section 50(2) deems a corporation to be in a position to dominate a market if that corporation and any related bodies corporate are together in that position. As to when bodies corporate are related, it was argued, unsuccessfully, in TPC v Bowral Brickworks Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 552; 55 ALR 733; [1984] ATPR 40-480 that the word “related” in s 50(2) had a wider meaning than that subscribed to it by s 4A(5). [CCA.50.460]

Concept: person

In addition to applying to corporate mergers, s 50 applies to acquisitions of assets of a “person”. Section 22(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 defines this term as follows: (a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as “person”, “party”, “someone”, “anyone”, “no-one”, “one”, “another” and “whoever”), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual. [CCA.50.480]

Onus and standard of proof

Where a party seeks a declaration that a merger is not likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition, that party must satisfy the court that its hypothesis is more probable than the competing hypothesis: AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966. ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151 is an example in which the ACCC failed to do so, in part by postulating a range of hypotheses. To what standard must the party bearing the onus establish its case? In ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCAFC 151 Yates J expressed the view, but did not decide, that the relevant standard was a “real chance” standard, Buchanan J decided that the relevant standard should be the balance of probabilities (“more probable than not”) and Finn J declined to express a view on the matter. At first instance (ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd [2011] FCA 967) Emmett J applied different standards to the two relevant questions – what is the likely market position with and without the merger, and given that position, what is the likely effect of the merger on competition. His Honour considered that, where the ACCC puts forward multiple counterfactuals it is not entitled to succeed unless, first, it is more probable than not that one of the ACCC’s counterfactuals will come to pass if the proposed acquisition does not proceed, and secondly, that there is a real chance that, if the proposed acquisition does proceed, it would result in a substantial lessening of competition compared to the scenario in which one of those counterfactuals comes to pass. See also AGL v ACCC (No 3) [2003] FCA 1525; (2003) 137 FCR 317; [2003] ATPR 41-966 (French J).

536

Miller’s Australian Competition and Consumer Law Annotated

[CCA.50.500]

s 50

Primary production

Section 173 provides that, in deciding whether a person or corporation has contravened s 50, the vesting of ownership of primary products in the person or corporation by legislation is to be taken, for the purposes of s 51(1)(a)(i), to be specified in, and specifically authorised. [CCA.50.520]

Authorisation

Where the acquirer proves to the satisfaction of the ACCC, or on review the Tribunal, that the merger or acquisition would be likely to result in such a benefit to the public that it ought to proceed, authorisation may be granted. Although the ACCC originally had jurisdiction to grant merger authorisations, now only the Tribunal may grant them: s 95AT. However, the ACCC has a role in assisting the Tribunal: s 95AZF. The ACCC does, however, have a decision-making role in relation to overseas mergers to which s 50A applies. The ACCC can grant authorisation where it is satisfied that, in all of the circumstances, the proposed acquisition would result, or be likely to result , in such a benefit to the public that it should be authorised: ss 88(9) and 90(9). There has only been one application to the Tribunal for merger authorisation since s 95AT was inserted in 2006: see Re Macquarie Generation & AGL Energy Ltd [2014] ACompT 1. Prior to that, the Tribunal considered merger authorisation applications only on a re-hearing of a decision by the Commission to grant, or refuse to grant, authorisation: see, for example Re Qantas Airways Ltd [2004] ACompT 9; Re Adelaide Brighton Ltd [1999] ACompT 1. Special provision is made for lodgement of authorisation applications after the acquisition contract has been entered: s 50(4). [CCA.50.540]

Informal merger clearances

Although the Act provides a formal authorisation procedure and a formal clearance procedure, those processes are only resorted to in rare circumstances. Authorisation has not been regarded as a satisfactory method of determining whether or not the ACCC will intervene in a merger. Instead there is a well-established practice of seeking informal advance “clearance” from the ACCC. The ACCC’s “expectation” is that merger parties will apply for informal merger clearance if the proposed merger involves products that are either complements or substitutes and the merged firm will have a post-merger market share of >20%. However, the ACCC is unlikely to refuse clearance, at least in horizontal mergers, unless the post-merger HHI is 2000 with a delta of 20%. However, the ACCC is unlikely to refuse clearance, at least in horizontal mergers, unless the post-merger HHI is 2000 with a delta of