Section 46(1) and 46(1AA) of the TPA : the struggle of the small against the large

The purpose of this article is to highlight the conflict in the policy objectives of subs 46(1) and subs 46(1AA) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). The policy objective of subs 46(1) is to promote competition and efficient markets for the benefit of consumers (consumer welfare standard). It does not prohibit corporations with substantial market power using cost savings arising from efficiencies such economies of scale or scope, to undercut small business competitors The policy objective of 46(1AA), on the other hand, is to protect small business operators from price discounting by their larger competitors.. Unlike subs 46(1), it does not contain a ‘taking advantage’ element. It is argued that subs 46(1AA) may harm consumer welfare by having a chilling effect on price competition if this would harm small business competitors.

Strategic entry deterrence : does it constitute a misuse of market power?

A challenge for regulators and the courts has been establishing the boundary between behaviour is exclusionary and should be condemned under s 46 of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA), now s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), and behaviour that is not exclusionary and might even be pro-competitive. This boundary can be especially difficult to draw in the case of entry deterring strategies. Section 46(1) prohibits corporations with a substantial degree of market power from taking advantage of that market power for one of the statutorily proscribed purposes which include preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market. Section 45(2) separately prohibits corporations from making and giving effect to contracts arrangements and understandings that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. The latest case in which the ACCC has failed to satisfy the s 46 criteria is the decision of Greenwood J in ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909 (Cement Australia case). Final orders were published in a separate judgment, in ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 148 (28 February 2014). The case concerned an entry deterring strategy, namely the pre-emptive buying of input factors in an upstream market to protect an incumbent with substantial market power in a downstream market and to prevent new entry in the downstream market. Greenwood J found that while Cement Australia Pty Ltd, formerly known as Queensland Cement Ltd (QCL), had substantial market power, its conduct in entering into the pre-emptive contracts was not a contravention of s 46, because Cement Australia had not “taken advantage” of its market power. However, since Cement Australia’s purpose in entering into the pre-emptive contracts was anti-competitive, they were held to contravene s 45(2) of the TPA. The purpose of this Note is to consider only the reasons for judgment in the Cement Australia case in relation to the “taking advantage” element. The judgment was handed down on 10 September 2013. The final hearing date was 15 July 2011, so it was long-awaited. At 714 pages, it is carefully drafted.

Franchisor failure : an assessment of the adequacy of regulatory response

Franchisor failure is one of the most problematic areas of the franchise relationship. It impacts negatively on landlords and other suppliers, but the contracting parties that are currently without legal rights to respond when a franchisor fails, and thus without consumer protection, are its franchisees. In this thesis I explore the current contractual, regulatory and commercial environment that franchisees inhabit, within the context of franchisor failure. I conclude that ex ante there are opportunities to level the playing field through consumer protection legislation. I also conclude that the task is not one solely for the consumer protection legislation; the problem should also be addressed ex post through the Corporations Act.

Real estate agents, brochure and misleading or deceptive conduct

The decision of the High Court in Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60 involves issues that affect every person who is induced to buy real estate in Australia by statements in sales brochures distributed by real estate agents. One of these issues is the extent to which estate agents unwittingly engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (‘the Act’) when they distribute sales brochures that contain untrue or misleading statements prepared by others. A further issue is the extent to which agents can escape liability by relying on disclaimers about the authenticity of false statements contained in brochures prepared by them.

Commercial vulnerability of tenant : a special disadvantage?

The Full Federal Court has once again been called upon to explore the limits of s51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the context of a retail tenancy between commercially experienced parties. The decision is Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 62.

Agents as intermediaries : when do they compete with their suppliers?

In cases involving allegations of price fixing under the former s 45A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), it was necessary to prove that at least two parties to the arrangement or understanding at issue were “in competition with each other”. The same requirement is contained in the cartel provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) that replaced s 45A. The so-called “competition condition” is set out in s 44ZZRD (4) of the CCA. Where a supplier enters into vertical supply arrangements with agents or brokers, problems can arise if the supplier also has a downstream presence. At that functional level there may be a horizontal and therefore competitive dimension, and the competition condition may be satisfied. In such circumstances, great care will need to be taken in any discussions between the supplier and its downstream agents or distributors about the prices, discounts, allowances, rebates or credits that the agent or distributor may charge. Whether agents or brokers competed with their suppliers in vertical supply arrangements arose for consideration in two decisions handed down by the Federal Court in Brisbane...

Building an effective trade practices commission : the role of Professor Robert Baxt AO

Bob Baxt, the third Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, served for a single three year term from 1988 to 1991. He followed Bob McComas, who had deliberately adopted a non-litigious approach to preserving the competitive process, believing that he understood business as an insider and that much of what it did was not anti-competitive, when correctly viewed. Baxt was far more pro-active in his approach, and more closely aligned with that of the first Chairman, Ron Bannerman. Baxt sought to push the frontiers of investigation and precedent, and perhaps, more significantly, sought to influence his Ministers, the government, public servants and public opinion about the need to expand the coverage of the Trade Practices Act, increase penalties and properly resource the Commission so that it could perform its assigned roles. This article examines Baxt’s early and on-going role in teaching Australian students and professionals through his interdisciplinary Trade Practices Workshops, the political context of Baxt’s tenure, including his relations with the Attorney-General ,Michael Duffy, and his skilful handling of the Queensland Wire case.

Review of penalties and additional damages : Trade Marks Act 1995

Effective enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights has become a significant issue due to concerns about the effects of IP infringement, including trade mark counterfeiting. It is an important issue for the Australian Government as IP rights underpin a strong, modern economy. Criminal offences and civil remedies can be an important element of an enforcement regime. This review of penalties and additional damages in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Trade Marks Act) has been prompted by a recommendation made by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP), recent changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) and concerns raised by stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to elicit comments on options which IP Australia is considering recommending to Government.

The Australian Consumer Law

Reform of Australia’s inconsistent Commonwealth, State and Territory consumer laws is now a reality. The 1 January 2011 commencement of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, is the culmination of a long process of consultation. Unifying and rationalising the plethora of laws, this new Act sees the disappearance of the “Trade Practices Act” and the amendment of a raft of State and Territory legislation; the new national regime informed by them operates in their stead. This is indisputably the most comprehensive change in the history of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This book aims to assist practitioners, academics and students understand the Australian Consumer Law regime and its impact. It summarises the history and constitutional basis of the ACL, explaining how the ACL will be implemented, amended and enforced. In addition it explores how the various general and specific protections interrelate, and the scope of their overlap, and considers the content of the ACL, and the principal changes from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.

An ethical approach to sharing school successes in times of high-stakes accountability

High-stakes testing has become an important element of the Australian educational landscape. As one part of the neo-liberal paradigm where beliefs in the individual and the free market are paramount, it is of concern how school leaders can respond to this phenomenon in an ethical manner. Ethics and ethical leadership have increased in prominence both in the educational administration literature and in the media (Cranston, Ehrich, & Kimber, 2006). In this paper we consider ethical theories on which school principals can draw, not only in the leadership of their own schools but in their relationships with other schools. We provide an example of a school leader sharing a successful intervention with other schools, illustrating that school leaders can create spaces for promoting the public good within the context of high-stakes testing.