*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (Volume 24 Part 2) contains the following material:
- The Harper Review – A review
- Words speak more loudly than actions
Are gas processing facilities “safe” from third party access? – Leanne McClurg
There exists a view among industry that gas processing facilities are “safe” from third party access. One basis for this view can be found in an exemption contained within Pt IIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). This article explores that exemption and considers relevant case law to conclude that a judge, so inclined in particular circumstances, could well determine the exemption does not preclude third party access to gas processing facilities. On this basis, gas processing facilities are by no means “safe” from third party access.
On 24 November 2015, the Federal Government released its response to the Final Report of the Competition Policy Review (the Harper Report). In relation to the misuse of market power provision under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the Harper Report recommended, inter alia, the removal of the “take advantage” requirement and the replacement of the current “purpose test” with a “purpose, effect or likely effect” test. The government’s response to this recommendation was to seek further consultation on other options to ensure that s 46 offered a commercially and legally robust approach to preventing the misuse of market power. A discussion paper was released in December 2015 which canvassed six options, from adopting the Harper Report’s recommendation in full (Option F) to maintaining the status quo (Option A). In March 2016, after due consideration to these options, the government announced it would adopt the Harper Report’s recommendation in full, effectively implementing an effects test for s 46. The purpose of this article is to consider the underlying rationale for the purpose test and evaluate whether it assists in identifying or distinguishing between anti-competitive (unlawful) and pro-competitive (lawful) behaviour.
This article examines the legal issues in a significant Chinese commercial case – Qihoo v Tencent – from a consumer and an Australian legal perspective, with particular reference to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Through a hypothetical application of that Act onto the facts of Qihoo v Tencent, this article identifies loopholes in the Chineseand Australian competition laws related to consumers’ dealings with software products and services. By using a comparative approach to analyse the void in the Chinese competition statutes, knowledge of the Australian law becomes a valuable aid for addressing domestic legal issues in China when relevant. As China has commenced a revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law 1993 and Australia has undergone a review of its competition law and policy, this article presents a current examination of the competition regime of the two countries for the advancement of consumer protection in digital transactions.
- The ihail application: An attempt to innovate or dominate? – Molly Snaith
- False advertising and “free range” eggs: Falling foul of the ACL – Stephanie Hayes
- Can’t we all just agree? Submissions as to pecuniary penalties – Justin Lipinski
- Consumers feel the need for speed: Why increased visibility over broadband performance will empower consumers – Rachel Thomas
- Competition between regulatory regimes – Alex Sundakov
- Russian competition law has been significantly reformed … once again – Evgeny Khokhlov
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 24 No 2 Contents.