*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 30 Part 4) contains the following material<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n Competition Litigation \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Role of the Federal Court <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Michael O\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Bryan<\/p>\n Since the enactment of Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s current competition laws in the Trade Practices Act 1974 <\/em>(Cth), competition laws in Australia have been judicially enforced. This distinctive system, shared with New Zealand and the United States, can be contrasted to the model of administrative enforcement of competition laws seen in other parts of the world. Judicial enforcement of competition laws has certain implications \u00e2\u20ac\u201c in particular, for the development of legal principle, the process of fact finding and the application of economic theory in decision-making. This article considers each of those matters in turn, as part of the exploration of a larger question \u00e2\u20ac\u201c whether the legal process, involving the enforcement of competition laws by the Federal Court, is capable of extended analysis of market power\u00c2\u00a0and competitive effects.<\/p>\n An Analysis of Publicity Orders under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Lloyd Freeburn and Ian Ramsay<\/p>\n Publicity orders (POs) typically require the public disclosure of information about a person\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s or company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wrongdoing and about penalties imposed by the court. POs are extensively used by some regulators, including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission but not, until recently, by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s reluctance to use POs changed in 2021, with a series of cases in which courts imposed \u00e2\u20ac\u0153non-punitive\u00e2\u20ac\u009d POs on defendants under s 12GLB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 <\/em>(Cth). \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Punitive\u00e2\u20ac\u009d POs are also available under s 12GLA. The authors examine the use of POs under the ASIC Act, including the distinction between punitive and non-punitive POs. The authors also consider the types of punishment imposed by punitive POs \u00e2\u20ac\u201c financial harm and reputational damage \u00e2\u20ac\u201c as well as how the form and content of information required to be disclosed by a PO relates to this punitive purpose.<\/p>\n ADMINISTRATION AND COMPETITION POLICY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Luke Wainscoat<\/em><\/p>\n DEFECTIVE GOODS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: THJ Cadd<\/em><\/p>\n CASE NOTE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC<\/em><\/p>\n COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS<\/a><\/p>\n COMMISSION CAMEOS<\/a><\/p>\n CONSUMER CONCERNS<\/a><\/p>\n ECONOMIC(S) MATTERS<\/a><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a><\/p>\n REPORT FROM CHINA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Wayne Leach<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM INDIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Pravin Anand<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c AJCCL VOL 30 No 4 Contents.<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n