The state of the art defence : defining the Australian experience in the context of pharmaceuticals

One of the defences within Part 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law is the state of the art, or development risk defence. This defence, although significant, has often been neglected in Australian jurisprudential analysis and has triggered at most generic academic analysis. However, with the rise of pharmaceutical and medical device litigation in Australia, it could become a vital weapon for Australian manufacturers against product liability claims. This paper will firstly review the two ways this defence could operate. It will also discuss the three types of defects which the defence could apply to. This paper aims to determine exactly when and how this defence should apply in Australia, in the context of pharmaceutical product liability claims.

An analysis of Australia's legal regime for imposing liability on manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs

Following a trial in June 2009 where the Federal Court heard submissions regarding whether Merck Sharpe and Dohme Australia should be held liable for an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions noted in patients who had taken the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, a judgment was handed down against MSDA in March 2010. MSDA appealed to the Full Federal Court, where they were successful. Special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was rejected in May 2012. This article will examine the themes raised in the trial judgment and the appropriateness of Australia’s statutory consumer protection regime through the lens of pharmaceutical drug injuries and side effects.

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...

Forrest v ASIC : a ‘perfect storm’

The policy objectives of the continuous disclosure regime augmented by the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions in the Corporations Act are to enhance the integrity and efficiency of Australian capital markets by ensuring equality of opportunity for all investors through public access to accurate and material company information to enable them to make well-informed investment decisions. This article argues that there were failures by the regulators in the performance of their roles to protect the interests of investors in Forrest v ASIC; FMG v ASIC (2012) 247 CLR 486: ASX failed to enforce timely compliance with the continuous disclosure regime and ensure that the market was properly informed by seeking immediate clarification from FMG as to the agreed fixed price and/or seeking production of a copy of the CREC agreement; and ASIC failed to succeed in the High Court because of the way it pleaded its case. The article also examines the reasoning of the High Court in Forrest v ASIC and whether it might have changed previous understandings of the Campomar test for determining whether representations directed to the public generally are misleading.

Statutory right of user - its impact in practice?

Scenario 1 A buys a two storey commercial building built along the only street frontage to the property. Vehicles cannot reach the rear of the property as the building extends across the entire width of the land. A bought the building with full knowledge that vehicular access to the rest of the property had been compromised by a desire to obtain maximum street frontage for the building which was occupied by a commercial tenant. On street parking is scarce in the surrounding area. A (to the knowledge of the adjoining owner B) constructs a carpark at the rear of the building. The employees of A’s tenant have been using the carpark obtaining access via a driveway on B’s land. To formalise this arrangement, A seeks a right of way for vehicles to travel down B’s driveway to access the carpark...

The cost of changing your mind!

A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dealt with the liability of a purchaser to pay a termination penalty where a contract for the purchase of a residential property was terminated during the ‘cooling-off’ period. The decision is Lucy Cole Prestige Properties Broadbeach Pty Ltd ATF Gaindri FT Trust t/as Lucy Cole Prestige Properties Broadbeach Pty Ltd v Kastrissios [2013] QCAT 653.

Plain English writing in Sri Lanka - an achievable goal

The use of plain English in document writing, whether in correspondence, agreements and deeds, court documents or judicial writing, is an important goal for the legal profession in Sri Lanka.

A review of Deeds of Company Arrangement

Deeds of company arrangement ('DOCAs') under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act appear be something of a limited success. However, the use and outcomes of DOCAs raise legitimate questions as to whether the level of returns currently being achieved for creditors might be improved by legislative reform. The 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship project entailed a review of a random sample of executed DOCAs effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This review was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current trends and outcomes of the use of DOCAs in practice – ie, average (or typical) rates of dividends paid, what DOCAs customarily achieve, the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average duration of DOCAs. The purpose of this review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of DOCAs in order to inform the ongoing debate about the success or otherwise of Australia’s Part 5.3A voluntary administration regime (which recently marked its 20 year anniversary).

A sample review of Deeds of Company Arrangement under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act

An empirical review of the operation of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is timely given that Australia’s corporate rescue regime marked its 20 year anniversary in 2013. The research project culminating in this report was funded by the 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship and entailed a review of a random sample of 72 executed DOCAs (and associated reports and returns) which were effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This sample review of DOCAs was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current practices and trends pertaining to DOCAs – ie, average (or typical) rate of dividends paid, the outcomes or goals which DOCAs customarily achieve (eg, genuine company rescues, workouts, enhanced asset realisations or ‘quasi-liquidations’), the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average term/duration of DOCAs. The purpose and value of this sample review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of one important aspect of Part 5.3A and to further inform consideration and debate as to whether changes are warranted to Australia’s voluntary administration regime.

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.

The fresh start goal of the Bankruptcy Act : giving a temporary reprieve or facilitating debtor rehabilitation?

Providing debtors with the opportunity for a fresh start is popularly regarded as one of the main goals of bankruptcy legislation. However, there has been limited analysis of this goal. This article confirms that the fresh start is one of the main goals of the Australian Bankruptcy Act, and argues that this fresh start focuses on discharge of debt and does not explicitly address debtor rehabilitation. A review of the key goals could examine whether, and to what extent, rehabilitation should also be a focus of the fresh start in Australian bankruptcy law.

Misleading conduct arising from public statements : establishing the knowledge base of the target audience

Despite the very substantial body of primary sources and secondary literature on Australia’s much-litigated statutory provisions proscribing misleading or deceptive conduct, the courts have provided little in the way of assistance about how to establish the knowledge base of the target audience at whom the public statement was directed. The purpose of this case note is to compare and contrast two recent decisions of the High Court of Australia that highlight the difficulties faced by applicants in attempting to establish a contravention of the relevant legislation where conduct is directed at a segment of the public or the public as a whole.

Behaviour v structure : Tribunal’s AGL Energy merger authorisation

Section 95AT of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) provides that the Tribunal may grant an authorisation to acquire shares or assets that would otherwise contravene s 50. Section 95AT was inserted by the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) and commenced on 1 January 2007. In Application for Authorisation of Macquarie Generation by AGL Energy Limited, (AGL Energy) the Tribunal has for the first time granted AGL Energy Limited (AGL) a conditional authorisation to acquire the assets of Macquarie Generation from the NSW Government.

Sector-specific regimes

This Chapter considers a number of sector-specific access regimes that apply to infrastructure that exhibits natural monopoly characteristics. With the exception of Pt XIC of the CCA which regulates access to telecommunications infrastructure, they adopt the same form of negotiate-arbitrate model found in Pt IIIA of the CCA. In the event of a failure to negotiate commercial terms and conditions of access they allow the regulator to impose cost based (building block)tariffs. The regulator's decisions are subject to merits review and/or judicial review. The Chapter is divided into four Parts: • Part I considers access regulation in the electricity sector; • Part II considers access regulation in the gas sector; • Part III considers access regulation in the telecommunications sector; and • Part N considers access regulation in relation to port and rail bulk supply chains.

Australian boarding school supervisors : a voluntary position?

This paper aims to examine how Australian boarding supervisors (particularly non-teachers) are defined in regards to employment. The practices of Queensland’s School X (real name withheld) are used as an example of the difficult issues involved – although whether this case study is repeated elsewhere in the industry would take further research. The paper illustrates that the employment of boarding supervisors is dealt with at a basic level by a modern award, however its provisions do not represent what occurs in practice. If there is no enterprise bargain which improves upon the award, two possible explanations are put forward to explain the difference between award conditions and practice. The first is that the contract between boarding supervisors may not be one of employment. Relevant case law regarding whether a person is an employee or independent contractor is examined, and when applied to a typical boarding situation, it is concluded that any contract should be one of employment. The second explanation is that there is no legal contract at all between boarding supervisors and a school. Drawing on School X’s example where supervisors were classed as ‘volunteers’, the paper examines what the legal effect of that term might be. It could be seen to be a denial of an intention to create legal relations, a critical element in contract formation. Again, important cases are analysed on the topic of intention, and applied to a boarding context. It is argued that given the objective circumstances of a typical agreement, there is an intention to create legal relations. In particular, a little known Queensland case involving the non-employment status of boarding supervisors, which may be the cause of the confusion, is critically examined to determine its usefulness in answering the issue. Finally, the implications of not classifying boarding supervisors as employees are briefly discussed.