*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.

To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] 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 26 Part 3) contains the following material:


  • Mega-Breaches


“Inconvenient Guests”? The Consumer Experience of Administrative Review for Electricity Pricing – Julia Mansour and Brooke Greenwood

Reforms to the national energy market have recently taken centre-stage in Australian politics. Debates have raged about how best to ensure environmental sustainability, security of supply, and affordability of energy costs, especially for vulnerable groups. Against this backdrop, this article reflects upon the consumer experience of legal advocacy to challenge electricity pricing decisions in the Australian Competition Tribunal under the Limited Merits Review (LMR) regime between 2015 and 2017. The article argues that, although consumer advocacy groups were unable to use the LMR system to effect electricity price reductions in this period, they nonetheless made an essential contribution to the legal reviews undertaken of the Australian Energy Regulator’s decisions. In light of the recent legislative abolition of LMR, the article also presents the case for reforms to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) to ensure that consumer groups can continue to participate in legal reviews of electricity pricing decisions in the future.

Misuse of Market Power in Australia and Abuse of Dominance in Canada: Two Legislated Effects Tests for Unilateral Conduct – Katharine Kemp

The new Australian law against misuse of market power (as amended in 2017) shares a number of similarities with the Canadian law against abuse of dominance. This article makes a comparative analysis of these laws against unilateral anti-competitive conduct, highlighting their similarities, including their focus on whether the impugned conduct has the effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. It also identifies important differences, including the Australian requirement to prove “purpose or effect” in contrast to the Canadian requirement to prove “purpose and effect” and the respective methods of addressing “legitimate business purpose” claims. It illustrates some of these differences with reference to a recent digital economy case in which the Canadian Commissioner of Competition succeeded in proving that a firm abused its dominance by imposing restrictions on access to data it controlled, notwithstanding the firm’s attempted justifications on privacy grounds.


  • The Independent Cinemas Authorisation – Georgia Sands


  • The Evolution of Penalties, Recent Successes of the ACCC and a Glimpse of the Future Paul D Evans


  • The Full Federal Court Dismisses the Pfizer Appeal Julie Clarke

CASE NOTEEditor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC

  • Flight Centre v ACCC: Increased Penalties for Attempted Price-Fixing by an Agent Felicity Lee


  • The Council’s Work in 20172018


  • National Energy Guarantee: Market Failure Begets Market Failure Alex Sundakov

REPORT FROM CHINAEditor: Sharon Henrick

  • Chinese Competition Authorities Merge Sharon Henrick, Susan Ning and Rebecca Mahony


  • The European Commission Toughens up on Procedural Breaches in Merger Control Cases Tom S Pick


  • ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
  • Google Inc v ACCC
  • Ergon Energy Corp Ltd v Australian Energy Regulator
  • ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (No 2)
  • Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v ACCC
  • ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd
  • ACCC v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2)

For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 26 No 3 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

For general queries, please contact: [email protected].