{"id":3155,"date":"2011-12-20T16:51:58","date_gmt":"2011-12-20T05:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=3155"},"modified":"2011-12-20T16:51:58","modified_gmt":"2011-12-20T05:51:58","slug":"australian-business-law-review-update-december-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/12\/20\/australian-business-law-review-update-december-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Business Law Review update: December 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the Australian Business Law Review <\/em>(Volume 39 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

The case for increased private enforcement of cartel laws in Australia<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Sarah Lynch<\/p>\n

In 2009, the Australian Parliament enacted the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153protected cartel\u00e2\u20ac\u009d information scheme in response to successful attempts by private parties to gain access to documents obtained by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under its Immunity Policy. This article examines the competing public interests in facilitating private actions on the one hand, and protecting the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Immunity Policy on the other hand. Using the United States as a comparison, it concludes that the protected cartel scheme may have struck the incorrect balance.<\/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

Deductibility of interest: A comparative perspective \u00e2\u20ac\u201c conceptual issues<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Chris Ohms and Karin Olesen<\/p>\n

Interest payable on borrowed funds or on amounts owing by reason of the operation of the law (for example interest that may be payable on statutory debts such as tax owing) in relation to an income earning activity is a significant (potential) deductible expense throughout the Commonwealth. The traditional \u00e2\u20ac\u0153form\u00e2\u20ac\u009d approach derived from the leading decision Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster <\/em>[1936] AC 1 requires that the underlying transaction giving rise to the interest, and the interest itself, be characterised according to the legal rights and obligations created evident from the objective intention of the parties. On the other hand, an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153economic substance\u00e2\u20ac\u009d approach allows for the same characterisation to arise having regard to the economic consequences that flow from the transaction. These issues have been considered and the movement towards the development of a conceptual framework which relies on commercial legal forms and absorbs this into its measurement and recognition basis.<\/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

The evolution of Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s harmonised OHS laws: Questions for today and tomorrow<\/em><\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Eric Windholz<\/p>\n

Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s new harmonised occupational health and safety (OHS) regulatory regime is scheduled to commence operation on 1 January 2012. The new harmonised regime is the most significant reform to OHS regulation in Australia since the adoption in the 1970s and 1980s of the Robens reforms. Yet such has been its evolution and the nature of the final product, that questions about its sustainability and future are already being asked. This article examines the new harmonised regime and concludes that much of the skepticism surrounding it is well founded: that the regime may not deliver the uniformity of law and consistency of experience its advocates seek; that it may prove slow and cumbersome in maintaining its currency; and that it is vulnerable to the introduction of new jurisdictional differences over time. Experience across a range of other regulatory regimes teaches us that when concerns such as these materialise, the alternative to which governments often turn is greater centralisation. With this possibility in mind, the article reflects upon the lessons of the past and asks some important questions that should be answered before we commit to that future. The answers to these questions are relevant not only to the future of OHS regulation in Australia, but to all areas of business regulation that are \u00e2\u20ac\u201c or may in the future be \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the subject of centralising forces.<\/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

COMPETITION LAW AND MARKET REGULATION<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Stephen Corones <\/em><\/p>\n