*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to New Westlaw.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law<\/em> (Volume 32 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/p>\n The Risk of Accessorial Liability for Lawyers Drafting Contracts That Contain UnfairTerms <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Peter Sise<\/p>\n Since 9 November 2023, the use of an unfair term in a standard form \u201cconsumer contract\u201dor \u201csmall business contract\u201d may result in pecuniary penalties being imposed under theAustralian Consumer Law or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act2001 <\/em>(Cth). This is a significant risk given the widespread use of standard from contracts.This risk may spread to lawyers who draft standard form contracts containing unfair termsdue to accessorial liability provisions in the relevant legislation. This article examines thatrisk to lawyers.<\/p>\n Concerted Practices: Does the Reach of s 45(1)(c) of the CCA Exceed Its Grasp? <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013Domenic Leonello<\/p>\n This article considers how courts are likely to interpret and apply the \u201cconcerted practices\u201dprohibition in s 45(1)(c) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 <\/em>(Cth). This articlecontends that the provision will expand the spectrum of anti-competitive dealingspreviously restrained by the narrow interpretation of \u201ccontracts\u201d, \u201carrangements\u201d and\u201cunderstandings\u201d. However, the provision will not extend to the same range of conductfound to be in contravention of Art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EuropeanUnion, despite the Explanatory Memorandum\u2019s (EM\u2019s) endorsement of EU jurisprudence.The article will consider the EM\u2019s formulation of \u201cconcerted practices\u201d, its implicit, yetambitious, indication of likely contraventions and the impediments to enforcement. Thearticle will demonstrate that the statutory scheme and common law principles will notonly likely preclude Australian courts from adopting the European Court of Justice\u2019s(ECJ\u2019s) broad reading of Art 101, but that Courts should be cautious when turning to EUjurisprudence for interpretive guidance.<\/p>\n DEFECTIVE GOODS \u2013 Editor: THJ Cadd<\/em><\/p>\n RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES \u2013 Editor: Julie Clarke<\/em><\/p>\n CASE NOTE \u2013 Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC<\/em><\/p>\n COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS<\/p>\n ENERGY ETCHINGS<\/p>\n ECONOMIC(S) MATTERS<\/p>\n COMMISSION CAMEOS<\/p>\n REPORT FROM CENTRAL ASIA \u2013 Editor: Evgeny Khokhlov<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM INDIA \u2013 Editors: Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia \u2013 AJCCL Vol 32 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