*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (Volume 27 Part 4) contains the following material
- Consumer Law and Race Relations
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd, a majority of the High Court held for the first time that an agent could be a competitor of its principal under Australia’s cartel laws. French CJ prudently observed in his dissenting judgment that the approach of the majority “opens the door to an operation of the Act which would seem to have little to do with the protection of competition”. This article expands upon the Chief Justice’s concerns by analysing how the decision has fundamentally redefined the way in which agency law interacts with competition law in the context of dual distribution arrangements. The article concludes that legislative reform is warranted to attenuate the serious risk of characterising dual distribution arrangements as cartel conduct, given such arrangements are commonly pro-competitive.
Recent amendments have highlighted the importance of understanding both the purpose and the effect of conduct in order to assess compliance with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). In particular, the analysis of purpose, independently of effect, may play an increasingly important role. Cases since the turn of the century demonstrate that conduct can have the purpose of substantially lessening competition, even in markets that show signs of workable competition. This article analyses the principles from such cases, and considers the challenges that emerge when they are applied to certain conditions, caught by s 47 of that Act, which necessarily restrict competition between the person imposing the condition and the person upon whom it is imposed. While such conditions are not necessarily unlawful, a careful study of their purpose, before they are imposed, is necessary, and parties should consider notification under Pt VII of the Act if a proscribed purpose might be inferred.
ACCESS TO SERVICES – Editor: John Hedge
- Revoking Declaration of the Newcastle Shipping Channel – New Criteria, New Regulation, Newcastle – David Mierendorff and Tarun McCormack
DEFECTIVE GOODS – Editor: Thomas Cadd
- Wall Printers That Clog, Luxury and Budget Cars Flogged; The Question of Jurisdiction and Borders
RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES – Editor: Julie Clarke
- Jumping the Proverbial Gun: The ACCC Succeeds in Its First Gun Jumping Cartel Case against Cryosite – Julie Clarke
CASE NOTES – Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt: A Consumer Protection Blackout? – Dr M Sharpe
- Mergers, Competitors and Perceptions: Some Trains of Thought on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd (No 2) – Michael Gvozdenovic and Stephen Puttick
- The Council’s Work during 2018– 2019 – Maureen Ip Hee Wai
- Are We Moving toward Some Further Changes to Competition Laws? – Hank Spier
REPORT FROM EUROPE – Editor: Tom S Pick
- Belgium Jumps on the Train of Targeting “Unfair Trading Practices” in the Agri-food Supply Chain – New Rules in B2B Relationships – Tom S Pick
REPORT FROM CHINA – Editor: Sharon Henrick
- SAMR Introduces Implementation Regulations – Sharon Henrick and Rebecca Mahony
- The Metaphysics of Market Power – The Zero-Sum Competition and Market Manipulation Approach, by George Raitt
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 27 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.