*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email:\u00c2\u00a0LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law<\/em> (Volume 26 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Inconvenient Guests\u00e2\u20ac\u009d? The Consumer Experience of Administrative Review for Electricity Pricing <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Julia Mansour and Brooke Greenwood<\/p>\n 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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 <\/em>(Cth) to ensure that consumer groups can continue to participate in legal reviews of electricity pricing decisions in the future.<\/p>\n Misuse of Market Power in Australia and Abuse of Dominance in Canada: Two Legislated Effects Tests for Unilateral Conduct <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Katharine Kemp<\/p>\n 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 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153purpose or effect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in contrast to the Canadian requirement to prove \u00e2\u20ac\u0153purpose and effect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and the respective methods of addressing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153legitimate business purpose\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s attempted justifications on privacy grounds.<\/p>\n AUTHORISATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Carolyn Oddie<\/em><\/p>\n ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Sarah Russell<\/em><\/p>\n RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Julie Clarke<\/em><\/p>\n CASE NOTE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC<\/em><\/p>\n COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS<\/a><\/p>\n ECONOMIC(S) MATTERS<\/a><\/p>\n REPORT FROM CHINA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Sharon Henrick<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM EUROPE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Tom S Pick<\/em><\/p>\n WORTH REPEATING<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 26 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n