The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Margin Squeezes as a Misuse of Market Power” – Paul McLachlan; “‘Your Rights Mob’: Making Indigenous Consumer Protection an Enduring Priority” – Rod Sims; “How Will the Enforcement of Section 46 of the CCA Change under the Full Harper?” – Sophie Matthiesson; and the following sections: Defective Goods; Case Note; Commission Cameos; Report from India; Report from Latin America; and Odds and Ends.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged "Your Rights Mob", “effects test”, “taking advantage of” requirement, “the Full Harper”, Aarthi Sridharan, Abhilasha Nautiyal, ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 12) [2016] FCA 822, AJCCL, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), cartel conduct, Case Note, Claribel Medina, Commission Cameos, Competition Act 2000 (India), Competition Commission of India (CCI), competition policies, Defective Goods, Editorial, Emilia Cadenas, free range eggs, Hank Spier, Harper Review, Indigenous consumer protection, Juan Mercant, Luis Eduardo Nieto, Luis Omar Guerrero Rodriguez, margin squeezes, Marianne Windirsch, Martin F Michaus, misuse of market power, Odds and Edds, Paul McLachlan, Peta Stevenson, Report from India, Report from Latin America, Rod Sims, section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), Sophie Matthiesson, Swati Sharma, T H J Cadd |
The latest Part of the Australian Business Law Review includes an Editorial by Professor Bob Baxt AO regarding debate about proposed changes to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). It also contains the following articles: “Settlement practices in Australia: The distinction between civil and criminal penalties” – Linda Evans and Alexander Vial; “Facilitating practices, vertical restraints and most favoured customers: Australian competition law is ill-equipped to meet the challenge” – Brent Fisse; and “Australia’s flawed Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) process” – Sue Taylor, Julie-Anne Tarr and Anthony Asher. Also in this Part are the following sections: Company Law and Securities: “Imposition of longer sentences for insider trading: The case of Hanlong Mining” – Mark Fisher and Michael Legg; and Competition Law and Market Regulation: “Section 46: Exposure draft legislation and ACCC draft misuse of market power guidelines” – Stephen Corones.
Posted in Australian Business Law Review (ABLR), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged ABLR, Alexander Vial, Anthony Asher, Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, Brent Fisse, cartel provisions, civil and criminal penalties, Commonwealth v Director Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 90 ALJR 113; [2015] HCA 46, company law and securities, competition law, Competition law and market regulation, discretionary by-pass provisions, Editorial, exposure draft legislation, facilitating practices, Future of Financial Advice (FOFA), Hanlong Mining, Harper Review, insider trading, Julie-Anne Tarr, Linda Evans, Mark Fisher, market power guidelines, Michael Legg, most favoured customers, National Broadband Network (NBN), parallel criminal and civil cartel provisions, Professor Robert Baxt AO, Professor Stephen Corones, Pt IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Registrable Superannuation Entity (RSE) licensing, Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), sentencing, settlement practices, Sue Taylor, vertical restraints |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Are gas processing facilities ‘safe’ from third party access?” – Leanne McClurg; “Unilateral conduct and the role of the purpose test in section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)” – Dr Shirley Quo; and “Everyone beware: A comparative study of consumer protection in Chinese and Australian mobile commerce” – Mary Ip; and the following sections: Authorisations and notifications; Consumer protection; Case Note; Consumer Concerns; Economic(s) Matters; Report from Russia; and Odds and Ends.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged “take advantage” requirement, AJCCL, Alex Sundakov, Authorisations and notifications, Beijing Qihoo Technology Co Ltd v Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, Bernard McCabe, broadband performance, Carolyn Oddie, Case Note, Chinese mobile commerce, comparative study, Consumer concerns, Consumer Protection, Dr Shirley Quo, Economic(s) Matters, Editorial, Evgeny Khokhlov, exemption, free range eggs, gas processing facilities, Harper Report, Harper Review, ihail Pty Ltd, Justin Lipinski, Leanne McClurg, Mary Ip, misuse of market power, Molly Snaith, Odds and Ends, Pt IIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), purpose test, Rachel Thomas, Report from Russia, s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Stephanie Hayes, third party access, unilateral conduct |
The latest Part of the Australian Business Law Review includes the following articles: “The evolution of the ‘substantial lessening of competition’ test – a review of case law” – Peter Armitage; “Do workplace policies form part of employment contracts? A working guide and advice for employers” – Mark Giancaspro; “Unravelling the muddles of summary dismissal under contracts of employment” – Victoria Lambropoulos; and “Research collaborations and ‘authorship’: Differentiating legal from management norms” – Elizabeth Adeney. Also in this Part is the following section: Banking and Finance: “Bankruptcy, social security and long term poverty: results from a survey of financial counsellors and consumer solicitors” – Paul Ali, Lucinda O’Brien and Ian Ramsay.
Posted in Australian Business Law Review (ABLR), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged Assoc Prof Paul Ali, authorship in scientific research, Banking and finance, bankruptcy rates, C&SLJ, company culture, continuous disclosure provisions, contract of employment, creditor hardship programs, Dr Victoria Lambropoulos, Editorial, Elizabeth Adeney, financial counsellors, financial hardship, Harper Review, Ian Ramsay, Infringement Notice (IN) regime, institutional authorship guidelines, intellectual property ownership, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), legal liability for employers and employees, Lucinda O'Brien, Mark Giancaspro, Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner (2015) 229 FCR 221, middle class bankruptcy, misuse of market power, penalties, personal insolvency system, Peter Armitage, Professor Robert Baxt AO, research collaboration, scientific literature, social security, substantial lessening of competition test, summary dismissal of employees, workplace policy and employment contract |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Could the Harper Review recommendations revive private enforcement of cartel prohibitions?” – Rebecca Gilsenan; “Place names as marketing tools: Legal issues in the use of geographic names” – Neil Francey; and “Are we there yet? A return to the rational for Australian consumer protection” – Brenton Lee Worth; and the following sections: Access to Services; Telecommunications; Case Notes; Tribunal Tableaux; Council Considerations; Energy Etchings; Snapshots; Report from Europe; Report from New Zealand; and Book Review.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged ACCC v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] ATPR 42-452, ACCC v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103, AJCCL, Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age: Leniency Religion, Australian Competition Tribunal, Australian Energy Regulator (AER), book review, Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2015] VSC 352, Brenton Lee Worth, business names, Caron Beaton-Wells, case notes, Christopher Hodgekiss SC, Christopher Tran, Commerce Commission (NZ), comparative advertising, competitive advertising, copyright, Council considerations, Damien O'Brien QC, Debra Wilson, declaration criterion, Douglas Shirrefs, e-commerce sector inquiry, Editorial, Energy etchings, European Commission, Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; [2015] FCAFC 104, Harper Report, Harper Review, Holly Raiche, Jennifer Hambleton, Jessica Rusten, John Hedge, Jonathan de Ridder, national access regime, Neil Francey, Niloufer Selvadurai, passing off, Paula Conboy, Peeta Hutson, Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2012) 246 CLR 379, place names legislation, private enforcement of cartel laws, procedural fairness, R J Desiatnik, Raymond Roca, Rebecca Gilsenan, Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd v Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 753, Report from Europe, Report from New Zealand, Snapshots, Telecommunications Competition Notice Guidelines, Tom Pick, trade marks, Tribunal Tableaux, unfair contract term legislation |
The latest Part of the Australian Business Law Review includes the following articles: “US Supreme Court revises fraud on the market presumption: Ramifications for Australian shareholder class actions” – Michael Legg, John Emmerig and Georgina Westgarth; “Bank guarantees and the reasonable expectations of beneficiaries” – Bill Dixon; “Cartels, extraterritoriality, and the Harper Review – the search for a connecting factor” – Ian Stewart; “Rural Press: A game of collusion” – Nicholas Twomey; and “Remote signing protocols for financing transactions” – The Walrus Committee. Also in this Part are the following sections: Media and Telecommunications: “Competition Law and Digital Disruption – Insights for Australia” – Dr Martyn Taylor; and Commercial Litigation: “Unions overplaying their hand? Terminating bargains in the mining sector – An analysis of Re Aurizon Operations Ltd [2015] FWCFB 540 – Louise Floyd.
Posted in Australian Business Law Review (ABLR), Update Summaries | Tagged ABLR, Australian shareholder class actions, bank guarantee, Basic Inc v Levinson 485 US 224 (1988), Bill Dixon, cartels, cash equivalent, collusion by competitors, Commercial Litigation, connecting factor, contravention of s 45, Dr Martyn Taylor, Editorial, extraterritoriality, Georgina Westgarth, Halliburton Co v Erica P John Fund Inc 134 S Ct 2398 (2014), Harper Review, Ian Stewart, John Emmerig, Louise Floyd, Media and Telecommunications, Michael Legg, Nicholas Twomey, presumption of fraud on the market, Professor Robert Baxt AO, Re Aurizon Operations Ltd [2015] FWCFB 540, reasonable expectations of the beneficiary, remote signing protocols for financing transactions, Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 216 CLR 53, The Walrus Committee, unilateral misuse of market power under s 46, US Supreme Court |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “A fly in the ointment for the ACCC? Implications of the Cement Australia decision for the interpretation of section 46” – Caroline Coops; and “Acceptable quality v merchantable quality” – Lynsey Edgar. Also in this Part are the following sections: Enforcement and Remedies; Case Note; What if…; Comments from Commerce; Consumer Concerns; Snapshots; Economic(s) Matters; Report from New Zealand; Report from Asia; and Report from Russia.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Update Summaries | Tagged "essential facilities", ACCC, acceptable quality, AJCCL, Alex Sundakov, Amanda Seethor, ASEAN member countries, Australian Consumer Law, Caroline Coops, Case Note, Cement Australia decision, Comments from Commerce, Competition Policy Review, Consumer concerns, Diana Biscoe, Douglas Shirrefs, Economic(s) Matters, energy usage charges, Enforcement and Remedies, Harper Review, Jemimah Roberts, Jenny Mee, Julia Borisova, Kerry Lee, Lindsay Trotman, Lynsey Edgar, Matthew Berkahn, Matthew Knox, merchantable quality, Murray Deakin, net neutrality, privatising regulated infrastructure, Report from Asia, Report from New Zealand, Report from Russia, Russell Miller AM, s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Simon Pryor, Snapshots, Tom Clarke, What if..., Xavier O’Halloran |
The latest Part of ABLR includes the following articles: “The ACCC: Roots and branches – proposals to enhance ACCC effectiveness” – Caron Beaton-Wells; “Roots, branches and other objects – one step beyond the Harper Review?” – I S Wylie; “Online dispute resolution: The advantages, disadvantages, and the way forward” – Anthony John Sissian; “Challenges facing the notariat in Australasia in the 21st century” – Noel Cox; and “Dashed expectations? The impact of civil liability legislation on contractual damages for disappointment and distress” – Sonia Walker and Kate Lewins; and the following sections: Intellectual Property Law: “Why is an isolated segment of human DNA patentable under Australian law but not under United States law?”; Competition Law and Market Regulation: “Competition Policy Review: Draft recommendations on competition laws”; and Company and Securities Law: “The government response to the Senate Economic References Committee Report into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission”.
Posted in Australian Business Law Review (ABLR) | Tagged ABLR, ACCC, Anthony John Sissian, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), ASIC, Campbell Thompson, Caron Beaton-Wells, civil liability, Company and Securities Law, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Competition law and market regulation, Competition Policy Review, contracural damages, Harper Review, I S Wylie, intellectual property law, Kate Lewins, Legislation, Noel Cox, office of notary, online dispute resolution, root and branch inquiry, Senate Economic References Committee Report, Sonia Walker, Stephen Corones |
Facebook
Twitter
Rss
Journals Talk is Thomson Reuters’ portal for our journals customers and contributors. Here you’ll find the latest on the most extensive range of legal journals in the Australian market, along with articles, news, submission requirements and more.
Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: June 2015
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “A fly in the ointment for the ACCC? Implications of the Cement Australia decision for the interpretation of section 46” – Caroline Coops; and “Acceptable quality v merchantable quality” – Lynsey Edgar. Also in this Part are the following sections: Enforcement and Remedies; Case Note; What if…; Comments from Commerce; Consumer Concerns; Snapshots; Economic(s) Matters; Report from New Zealand; Report from Asia; and Report from Russia.