Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. Help desk Ask W3C's easy-to-use markup validation service, based on SGML and XML parsers. The Full Federal Court set aside the judgment of Justice Jessup and made declarations that Lux had engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to the sale of vacuum cleaners to three elderly consumers in their homes. (No 12) [2016] FCA 822Cartels, price fixing (bid rigging); extraterritoriality, Application by Co-operative Bulk Handling Limited (No 3) [2013] ACompT 3Appeal against revocation of exclusive dealing notification - public benefit v SLC, Norcast S.r.L v Bradken Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 235 (19 March 2013)Cartels - bid-rigging - first case to consider new cartel laws, Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd[2013] FCA 119 (22 February 2013)Exclusive dealing (application for interlocutory relief dismissed), ACCCv Eternal Beauty Products Pty Ltd[2012] FCA 1124 Resale price maintenance (admissions and agreed penalties), ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 348 Exclusive dealing - third line forcing, Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal[2012] HCA 36Access regime, Full Federal Court:Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58 (4 May 2011)Tribunal:Fortescue Metals Group Limited; In the Matter of [2010] ACompT 2, SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116 Exclusionary provisions - anti-competitive agreements (purpose/effect of SLC) - market definition. . This decision is likely to encourage the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to maintain unconscionable conduct as an enforcement priority. in the context of consumer dealings, the requirements of honest and fair conduct, free of deception. The Federal Court has ordered Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (Lux) pay pecuniary penalties totalling $370,000 for engaging in unconscionable conduct, in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 Despite the trial judge's view that there were no direct lies told by the Lux representatives, the Full Court held that the sales tactics used to gain entry and induce a sale were not justifiable, the process of selling under the pretence of a "free maintenance check" was unconscionable. 21st August, 2013 by David Jacobson. On appeal, the Full Federal Court agreed with the ACCC and found Lux engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of s21 of the ACL. ACCC v Lux Distributors: what is unconscionable conduct? Rural Press Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 75 (11 December 2003)Misuse of market power and exclusionary provisions, Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] FCAFC 193Misuse of market power; exclusive dealing, purpose or effect of SLC, Visy Paper Pty Ltd v ACCC [2003] HCA 59Section 45 and 47 - anti-overlap, ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (ACN 050 411 946) (in liq) [2002] FCA 402Exclusive dealing (third line forcing), Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v ACCC [2002] HCA 49; 213 CLR 543; 192 ALR 561; 77 ALJR 40Section 155; Legal Professional Privilege, Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v The Institute of Chartered Accountants (2002) 122 FCR 110Likely effect of SLC, ACCC v ABB Transmission and Distribution Limited [2001] FCA 383Pecuniary penalty - joint submissions - factors relevant to appropriate penalty, ACCC v Boral Ltd (Includes Corrigendum dated 29 March 2001) [2001] FCA 30Misuse of market power (appealed to High Court), ACCC v Roche Vitamins Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 150Pecuniary penalty - factors relevant to appropriate penalty, Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 201 CLR 181Restraint of Trade, Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 13Misuse of market power, Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [2001] HCA 45Restraint of trade; s 4M, Australian Rugby Union Limited v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 823Market definition, Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 1381SLC test, ACCC v Boral Ltd [1999] FCA 1318 (22 September 1999) Misuse of market power (appealed to Federal Court (2001) and High Court (2003)). (para 24), Appeal from:Williams & Anor v Papersave Pty Ltd (1987) ATPR 40-818; [1987] FCA 162 (Sheppard J)Substantial market power and prohibited purpose existed, but not the taking advantage element; taking advantage of information, not taking advantage of market power, BP Australia Ltd v TPC (1986) 12 FCR 118Resale price maintenance, Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 72; (1986) 162 CLR 395 (2 December 1986)Exclusive dealing (third line forcing), The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v TPC (1986) 9 FCR 153Resale price maintenance, Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) 19 FCR 10Exclusionary provisions - definition of corporation, TPC v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 446Anti-competitive agreements; Price Fixing, Warman International & Ors v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd & Ors(1986) ATPR 40-714 (Wilcox J)Enforcing copyright not taking advantage of market power - taking advantage of legal right, TPC v Parkfield Operations Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 140Contract, arrangement or understanding - mutuality, TPC v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1Agreement or understanding - exclusionary provision - SLC - economic evidence, TPC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1984) 3 FCR 168Resale price maintenance, TPC v Orlane Australia Pty Limited [1984] 1 FCR 157; FCA 5; 51 ALR 767Resale price maintenance, O'Brien Glass Industries Ltd v Cool & Sons Pty Ltd (1983) 77 FLR 441Market definition; exclusive dealing, Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70[Full Federal Court]Meaning of 'substantial', Appeal From:Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437[Federal Court (Lockhart J)]Meaning of 'substantial', Dandy Power Equipment Pty Ltd v Mercury Marine Pty Ltd (1982) ATPR 40315Substantial lessening of competition, Outboard Marine Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments (No 6) Pty Ltd (1982) ATPR 40327Exclusive dealing, Re: Peter Williamson Pty Ltd v Capitol Motors Ltd [1982] FCA 79Resale price maintenance - refusal to supply - recommended price, Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1982) 62 FLR 437[Federal Court (Lockhart J)]Meaning of 'substantial', Appeal to:Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70[Full Federal Court]Meaning of 'substantial', TPC v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 142; (1981) 60 FLR 38Agreed penalties, Morphett Arms Hotel Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1980) 30 ALR 88This is the appeal from TPC v Nicholas Enterprises, Ron Hodgson (Holding) Pty Ltd v Westco Motors (Distributors) Pty Ltd(1980) 29 ALR 307; [1980] FCA 3Resale price maintenance (withholding supply), SWB Family Credit Union Ltd v Parramatta Tourist Services Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 125; (1980) 48 FLR 445Exclusive dealing (third line forcing), TPC v Email Ltd (1980) ATPR 40172Anti-competitive agreements; exchange of price lists, circumstantial evidence, Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979) 27 ALR 367Secondary boycott - purpose - meaning of 'substantial', In Re Tooth and Co Limited; In Re Tooheys Limited (1979) ATPR 40113(Tribunal)Market definition, TPC v Nicholas Enterprises (1979) 40 FLR 83Contract, arrangement or understanding, Re Ku-ring-gai Co-operative Building Society (No. Competition, Consumer Law | Admitted conduct. The Full Court noted in its judgment in 2013 that consumer protection laws reinforce societal values and expectations that consumers will be dealt with honestly and fairly, and without deception.. The Full Federal Court today handed down its decision in relation to Australian Competition and Consumer Commissions appeal against the judgment in ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd. Accordingly, businesses should ensure its selling practices and dealings conforms with the community's general standards of fairness. We want take a moment to . special advantage and exploited Why s21 special What (are) MIGHT BE the lessons to learn for Tsingshan, for "Snipers", for institutional investors, for retail investors, and for regulators (e.g., LME)? Coles withheld money from suppliers, Coles practices, demands and threats were deliberate, orchestrated and relentless., Unconscionanble: ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926, The word unconscionable is not a term of art. Webmasquepen masking fluid what steps do i take to become a teacher accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 : how to identify madame alexander The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Coles misused its, bargaining power. WebIn Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90 the Federal Court Full Court declared that in selling its vacuum cleaners Lux Problem with a product or service you bought, Problem with a product or service you sold, Expand submenu for "Inquiries and consultations", Digital platform services inquiry 2020-25, Electricity market monitoring inquiry 2018-25, Regional mobile infrastructure inquiry 2022-23, Merger and competition exemption consultations, ACCC submissions to external consultations, Authorisations and notifications registers, Collective bargaining notifications register, Resale price maintenance notifications register, Full Federal Court declares Lux conduct unconscionable, ACCC appeals unconscionable conduct decision, Federal Court dismisses unconscionable conduct case, ACCC alleges unconscionable conduct by vacuum cleaner retailer. In an important decision, the Full Federal Court of Australia has held that conduct alleged to be unconscionable is to be assessed against a normative standard of conscience, permeated with accepted and acceptable community values. It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards. When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. The ACCC acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands across Australia on which we live and work. Some cases appeared to require the alleged victim to suffer from a "special disadvantage" and the alleged perpetrator's conduct needed to be unfair or unreasonable, but also involve some moral tainting. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Guilty plea. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1007 (30 August 2022) (Justice Downes)Penalty decision in relation to secondary boycott conduct - consideration of s 76 and 80. The recent Full Federal Court decision in relation to the ACCC's appeal against the judgment of Justice Jessup in ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (Lux case), is a significant victory for the ACCC in its fight against businesses engaging in unconscionable conduct. This restored the common practice that had been halted as a result of the Full Federal Court's decision which precluded joint penalty submissions. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Luxs sales telephone script called for its representatives to arrange to attend at elderly womens homes for the purpose of making a free maintenance check on the householders existing vacuum cleaner. Lux ordered to pay $370,000 penalty for unconscionable ACCC appeal failed. Webaccc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926examples of counterculture and subculture. WebACCC v Lux Pty Ltd 2004 FCA 926 Unconscionable conduct The word unconscionable. The Appeal Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Joyce [2022] FCA 1423 (29 November 2022) (Justice Abraham)Criminal cartel. Web3.53 Astvilla Pty Ltd v Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria [2006] VSC. v Lux FCA 926 The was successful in a claim for consumer unconscionability under the predecessor of s21 for the misconduct of a vacuum cleaner salesman in his dealings with an illiterate and intellectually disabled consumer. ACCC v Metcash Trading Limited [2011] FCA 967 (25 August 2011); [2001] FCAFC 151 (30 November 2011)Merger - held merger not likely to SLC. LLW2008 Unconsionabilty Guide under ACL Summary Notes Note. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Keep up-to-date on the latest media releases from the ACCC via email updates. The ACCC alleged that between 2009 and 2011, Lux engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to the sale of vacuum cleaners to elderly consumers in contravention of section 51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and section 21 of the ACL. As the Lux representatives gained entry to people's homes by deception and spent time to be "helpful", the Full Court said this created an inequality in bargaining power because the consumer was less inclined to ask the representative to leave, the trial judge should have found that the primary purpose of the visit into a home under the guise of a "free maintenance check" was to sell a vacuum cleaner and this deception tainted all conduct thereafter, the trial judge failed to give weight to the deception that unfairly deprived each of the women a meaningful opportunity to decline to have the Lux representative enter the home, the Lux representatives who were given the opportunity to enter the house obtained a position of strength over the consumer. This community based standard clarifies the scope of the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. Particular attention should be paid to reviewing systems and the training of sales staff to ensure they are aware of the new context by which their conduct will be measured. Bail; Boozing then Suing; and the Perils of Buying Houses. WebThe ACCC's action against Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (Lux) involved allegations that between 2009 and 2011, Lux sales representatives engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation Question 22 The December Treasury bond futures price is currently quoted as 91-12, then the bond price is 91 91.375 79 91.12, Based on a company's balance sheet, the asset includes: A1 with value of $3 million and duration of 2years A2 with value of $2 million and duration of 6 years A3 with value of $1 million and duration. purported benefits of the ARC program to their small business. s21(4) It is the intention of the Parliament that: (a) this section is not limited by the unwritten law relating to unconscionable conduct; and. showing no regard for conscience, irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd. please use link below to answer 1-9 : We are interested in finding out lower bound and upper bound of a trading strategy, because knowing them can help us identify arbitrage opportunities when observing the relationships are violated in. 2012 Cambridge University Press WebAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926: Section 22 (Factors the court will consider) Section 22 of the ACL (and s ASICA) lists a number of For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Upon entry into their home, the Lux representatives conducted a brief check of the existing vacuum cleaner before showing the elderly women the new model vacuum cleaner and using sales tactics for an extended period to induce them into purchasing the new model, which costed more than if the machine was purchased at retail stores. Its conduct was not done in good conscience. 3.55 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. Sentenced to 32 months imprisonment and $50,000 + disqualification from directorship. We have detected that you are in France. At first instance, Justice Jessup found that Lux did not engage in unconscionable conduct. JD Supra: Federal Court Clarifies Unconscionable Conduct Law (No 12) [2016] FCA 822, ACCC v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 150Mergers: ACCC's application for judicial review regarding process for determining merger authorisation, ACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 152Cartels (attempt): Allegations of attempting to induce cartel conduct (dismissed), ACCC v v Cement Australia Pty Ltd[2017] FCAFC 159Appeal against penalty from: ACCC v Cement Australia [2013] FCA 909 (10 September 2013)Anti-competitive agreements, misuse of market power, penalties, ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 1590Cartels (price fixing): consideration of whether agreement or mere oligopolistic behaviour[Note this was the contested proceedings; earlier consent proceedings with Colgate and Woolworths resulted in penalties of approx $27m], ACCC v Olex Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 222 (9 March 2017)Cartels:Allegations of cartel conduct dismissed, Air New Zealand Ltd v ACCC; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v ACCC [2017] HCA 21Cartels (price fixing), market definition:'market in Australia'; s 4E, Bendigo and Adelaide Banks & Ors (Authorisation application re: ApplePay)Authorisation (collective bargaining and boycott):Application for authorisation in respect of ApplePayAuthorisation denied. (ii) the manner in which and the extent to which the contract is carried out; and is not limited to consideration of the circumstances relating to formation of the contract. document.getElementById( "ak_js_5" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); The Bright Law logo is a registered trade mark owned by Bright Legal Services Pty Ltd | Bright Law is the business name of Bright Legal Services Pty Ltd ABN 55166695610 | Legal advice to Bright Law customers is provided through Bright Corporate Law | The liability of Bright Corporate Law is limited by a scheme approved by Professional Standards Legislation. His Honour based this view on a number of findings, including that Lux's sales tactics were traditional methods which customers would be expected to be aware of; the Lux sales representatives were entering the houses to complete free maintenance checks; and consumers who may have felt pressured had the benefit of a 10 day cooling-off period. The Constitution of the United States of America (see annotations) Preamble ["We the people"] (see annotations) Article I [The Legislative Branch] (see annotations), California information resource links to state homepage, symbols, flags, maps, constitutions, representitives, songs, birds, flowers, trees, Consumer Affairs Victoria took action on her behalf against two property development companies, Astvilla and Perna, and also against Livio Cellante, the General . WebACCC v G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003)197 ALR 153 369 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926 370 ADM v Mexico (NAFTA claim) 839 Advocats San Frontieres (on accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 The ACCC alleged that between 2009 and 2011, Lux engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to the sale of vacuum cleaners to five elderly consumers in contravention of section 51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law. Accc v lux pty ltd 2004 fca 926 unconscionable document.getElementById( "ak_js_3" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Level 20, 300 Queen Street, Brisbane, QLD, document.getElementById("eeb-32721-796689").innerHTML = eval(decodeURIComponent("%27%63%6f%6e%74%61%63%74%40%62%72%69%67%68%74%6c%61%77%2e%63%6f%6d%2e%61%75%27"))*protected email*. It was contrary to, conscience. The following is a case of 2022 LME Nickel futures price spike. The Courts decision represents a positive outcome for consumers and serves as a warning for businesses, Mr Sims said. The Full Federal Court today handed down its decision in relation to Australian Competition and Consumer Commissions appeal against the judgment in ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd. WebACCC v Lux [2004] FCA 926 The ACCC was successful in a claim for cons umer unconscionability under the predecessor of s 21 for the misconduct of a vacuum cle aner Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460Anti-competitive agreements, exclusionary provisions, misuse of market power, The Paul Dainty Corporation Pty Ltd v The National Tennis Centre Trust [1990] FCA 163; (1990) 22 FCR 495(LawCite)Exclusive dealing (sub-sections 47(1), (8), (9) and (13)), Pont Data Australia Pty Limited v ASX Operations Pty Limited (1990) FCA 30Misuse of market power, anti-competitive agreements, exclusive dealing, price discrimination, TPC v Sony (Australia) Pty Ltd (1990) ATPR 41031Resale price maintenance, Queensland Wire Industries v BHP (1989) 167 CLR 177 (High Court)Misuse of market power - leveraging market power (section 46), TPC v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 299Trade practices economics; mergers, Mark Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd(1987) 74 ALR 581Exclusive dealing, market definition, Williams and Vajili Pty Ltd v Papersave Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 351 (Full Federal Court)Appeal dismissed"Here we simply have a corporation which handled 60 per cent of the collection and treatment of waste computer paper, seeking to take a lease with no added special features, except a knowledge that a potential competitor also wanted the lease." Proceedings continued against other respondents, See:ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. Community portal Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. See Astvilla astvilla pty ltd victoria, vic 3107 lower templestowe, 29a macedon road, sentencing - applicant retained in custody for "other offences" in respect of astvilla v director of consumer affairs. Request Permissions, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. The Australian Consumer Law has no definition of unconscionable conduct. These laws of the States and the operative provisions of the ACL reinforce the recognised societal values and expectations that consumers will be dealt with honestly, fairly and without deception or unfair pressure. ACCC v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973 (24 August 2011)Price fixing - cover pricing in building tenders, ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1489 (22 December 2011)Misuse of market power (consent orders - $2.5m penalty), Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58 (4 May 2011)(Full Federal Court)Access regime, Appeal to High Court:Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal[2012] HCA 36Appeal from Tribunal:Fortescue Metals Group Limited; In the Matter of [2010] ACompT 2, ACCC v Black & White Cabs Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1399Exclusive dealing (third line forcing), ACCC v Cabcharge [2010] FCA 1261Contraventions admitted - misuse of market power (refusal to deal/predatory pricing), ACCC v IGC Dorel Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1303 (10 December 2010)Resale price maintenance - agreed penalties, Fortescue Metals Group Limited; In the Matter of [2010] ACompT 2Access (overturned in part on appeal to thefederal court), ACCC v Bill Express Ltd (in liq) (2009) 180 FCR 105; [2009] FCA 1022Exclusive dealing (third line forcing), Emirates v ACCC [2009] FCA 312Validity of s 155 notice - issue of market definition, Seven Network Ltd v News Limited [2007] FCA 1062; [2009] FCAFC 166 (the C7 case)Anti-competitive agreements; misuse of market power; market definition, Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136 (2 October 2009)Market definition, Appeal fromACCC v Singapore Airlines Cargo Pty Ltd (2009) ATPR 42-288; [2009] FCA 510, ACCC v British Airways PLC (2008) ATPR 42-265; [2008] FCA 1977Collusive conduct - SLC - Penalties - Admission of liability, ACCC v QANTAS Airways Ltd (2008) ATPR 42-266; [2008] FCA 1976Collusive conduct - SLC - Penalties - Admission of liability, Application by Chime Communications Pty Ltd [2008] ACompT 4Access, Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd (2008) ATPR 42-256; [2008] FCA 1458Alleged cartel - specificity of market (and associated proceedings), ACCC v Australian Abalone Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1834Admitted price fixing and boycott conduct - discussion of agreed penalties and mention of proposed criminal penalties, ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 (29 August 2007); [2008] FCAFC 141Misuse of market power, exclusive dealing, derivative crown immunity, ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 79Resale price maintenance, ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794 (29 May 2007)(Geelong Petrol case)Price fixing - meaning of 'contract, arrangement or understanding' (held no contravention), ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Limited (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617 (2 November 2007)Admission of cartel conduct - penalties of $36m + imposed, Nelson Enterprises Pty Ltd [ACCC Notification - 31 July 2007]Collective bargaining notification (first application - involved Queensland citrus growers), Re Medicines Australia Inc [2007] ACompT 4 (27 June 2007)Authorisation, RP Data Limited (ACN 087 759 171) v State of Queensland [2007] FCA 1639 Misuse of market power, ACCC v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 826 (30 June 2006)Exclusionary provisions, anti-competitive agreements, SST Consulting Services Pty Limited v Rieson [2006] HCA 31Focus on issue of severance and s 4L of the Act; exclusive dealing (third line forcing), ACCC v Dermalogica Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 152; (2005) 215 ALR 482Resale price maintenance, ACCC v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [2005] FCA 1900Misuse of Market Power, Exclusionary Provisions, Exclusive Dealing and Anti-competitve agreements (agreed penalties), Apco Service Stations Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161(Ballarat Petrol case)Price fixing, meaning of understanding(appeal fromACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1678), ACCC v ABB Power Transmission Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 819Pecuniary penalty - joint submission - cartels, ACCC v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 693Price fixing - joint submission on orders - principles governing joint submissions, Australian Association of Pathology Practices Incorporated [2004] ACompT 4; (2004) ATPR 41-985Authorisation - exclusive dealing - third line forcing, NT Power Generation v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48; 219 CLR 90Misuse of market power; access to services (through s 46), Qantas Airways Ltd [2004] A Comp T 9Authorisation, Seven Network Ltd v ACCC [2004] FCAFC 267; (2004) 140 FCR 170Section 155, ACCC v Australian Medical Association Western Australian Branch Inc [2003] FCA 686; (2003) ATPR 41-945Price fixing, market definition, ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited [2003] FCAFC 149 (30 June 2003)Misuse of market power, exclusive dealing, price fixing, Australian Gas Light Company (ACN 052 167 405) v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (No.

Used Wrecker Sales, What Happened To Jack Cafferty, Dirtiest Nba Players 2021, Leeds City Council Report Grass Verge, Taylor Swift's Parents Abandoned Mansion For Sale, Articles A