{"id":2708,"date":"2011-09-05T13:19:28","date_gmt":"2011-09-05T03:19:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=2708"},"modified":"2011-09-05T13:19:28","modified_gmt":"2011-09-05T03:19:28","slug":"australian-journal-of-competition-and-consumer-law-update-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/09\/05\/australian-journal-of-competition-and-consumer-law-update-september-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: September 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law<\/em> (Volume 19 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

Editorial<\/a><\/h3>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

Immunity: A dilemma for both whistleblowers and the ACCC<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Kon Stellios and Caterina Cavallaro<\/p>\n

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s (ACCC) immunity policy for cartel conduct has been in operation since 2003. The ACCC considers this policy, together with the introduction of possible imprisonment for cartel behaviour, to be the greatest weapon available to the ACCC for deterring and identifying such conduct. Indeed, the investigation and subsequent prosecution by the ACCC of a number of high profile cartels has been instigated by an immunity applicant. This article explores some of the practical issues which have arisen since the commencement of the ACCC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s immunity policy which threaten to undermine its efficacy. While the ACCC has been vigilant in seeking to minimise any adverse effect on the operation of its policy, it has not always been successful. Its main successes and failures are considered in this article.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Is there a future for Part IIIA after Fortescue?<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Thomas Jones and Sarah Godden<\/p>\n

This article considers the decisions of the Federal Court of Australia and the Australian Competition Tribunal in the recent Fortescue litigation, which are of seminal importance for the future application of Pt IIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). In the authors\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 view, the Tribunal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision contained four critical errors, which the Federal Court, in its decision, has not corrected.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL CONSUMER POLICY<\/a><\/p>\n