3) [2003] FCA 1525Mergers - declaration that merger would not SLC - declaration sought after ACCC refused to provide informal clearance, Boral Besser Masonry Limited (now Boral Masonry Ltd) v ACCC [2003] HCA 5 (7 February 2003)Misuse of market power; predatory pricing. 3.55 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926. LLW2008 Unconsionabilty Guide under ACL Summary Notes Lux ordered to pay $370,000 penalty for unconscionable 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. 3.56 ACCC v Radio Rentals [2005 Australia Real Estate Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Joyce [2022] FCA 1423 (29 November 2022) (Justice Abraham)Criminal cartel. cannot abuse the conduct for unconscionable conduct, 5/5/14 ACCC commences action against Coles for unconscionable conduct, Active Retail Collaboration Program (ARC), providing misleading information to suppliers about the savings and value to, using undue influence and unfair tactics against suppliers to obtain payments. This is a significant decision for the ACCC as it provides important clarity regarding the scope and operation of the unconscionable conduct provisions in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said. In the context of unsolicited consumer agreements (door to door sales) the court decided that The word unconscionability means something not done in good conscience and the purpose of the section is consumer protection directed at the requirements of honest and fair conduct free of deception. taking advantage of its superior bargaining position by, amongst other things, seeking payments when it had no legitimate basis for seeking them; and, requiring those suppliers to agree to the ongoing ARC rebate without, providing them with sufficient time to assess the value, if any, of the. On appeal, the Full Federal Court agreed with the ACCC and found Lux engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of s21 of the ACL. Fine of $1,987,500. Keep up-to-date on the latest media releases from the ACCC via email updates. Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46This case was not a competition law case; however it related to the common practice of parties agreeing with regulators on appropriate penalties to present to the Court. (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. The Full Federal Court said that the consumer protection laws of the states and Commonwealth reinforce the recognised societal values and expectations that consumers will be dealt with honestly, fairly and without deception and unfair pressure. In a number of earlier cases, a person needed to have a "special disadvantage" in order to be susceptible to 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)). The ACCC appealed the decision in relation to three of the consumers, and in August 2013 the Full Court of the Federal Court found that Lux had engaged in unconscionable conduct in respect of each of the three elderly consumers. 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. accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 Keep up-to-date on the latest media releases from the ACCC via email updates. Coles treated its suppliers in a manner not consistent with acceptable, business and social standards which apply to commercial dealings. It was contrary to, conscience. 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. 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 Webaccc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 92650 nic vape juice alberta50 nic vape juice alberta The conduct in question must be assessed against a normative standard of conscience, which requires: Additionally, the Full Court said the trial judge placed too much significance upon the statutory cooling-off period in dismissing the ACCC's argument of unconscionable conduct. The ACCC will continue to take enforcement action if it considers that companies have engaged in unconscionable conduct, particularly in cases involving vulnerable consumers and where there have been other breaches of consumer protection provisions of the ACL.. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. likely to SLC), ACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC154 (September 2019)Alleged cartel conduct (ACCC's appeal dismissed), Appeal fromACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 1019, ACCC v Cryosite Ltd [2019] FCA 116 (Justice Beach)Cartels (penalties): Cartel conduct (gun jumping) - $1.05m penalty imposed, ACCC v Pacific National Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 669(Justice Beach)(15 May 2019)Mergers:Acquisition involving Queensland rail terminal (s 50 CCA)(ACCC appeal unsuccessful), Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [2019] FCA 1170(Justice Wigney) Criminal cartel. (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. AW Tyree Transformers Pty Ltd and Wilson Transformer Co Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR (Com) 50247Authorisation - joint marketing scheme, News Ltd v Australian Rugby League Ltd (No 2) (1996) 64 FCR 410 (4 October 1996) (Superleague)Exclusionary provisions, NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134; 71 FCR 285Penalties - agreed penalties - principles, Re QIW Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 225Merger, Market definition, Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) ATPR 41-357Market definition, public benefits/detriment, Davids Holdings v Attorney-General (1994) 49 FCR 211Mergers, Market definition, KAM Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd (1994) 123 ALR 711Exclusive dealing, WSGAL Pty Limited v Trade Practices Commission, the Gillette Company, Wilkinson Sword Limited and Registrar of Trade Marks [1994] FCA 1079; (1994) 122 ALR 673Mergers and divestiture power under s 81 - constitutional validity, Gallagher v Pioneer Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd (1993) 113 ALR 159Anti-competitive agreements, QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings [1993] FCA 204; (1993) ATPR 41-226Mergers; Trade Practices Economics, Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorised Newsagents Associated Limited (1993) 44 FCR 35Purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition (ss 45 and 47), TPC v Service Station Association Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 206Anti-competitive agreements; Price Fixing, Broderbund Software Inc v Computermate Products (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) ATPR 41-155Market definition, Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 109Anti-competitive agreements; misuse of market power; market definition, TPC v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd (1992) ATPR 41163Resale price maintenance, Berlaz Pty Ltd v Fine Leather Care Products Limited [1991] FCA 163; (1991) 13 ATPR 41-118 (Interlocutory proceedings), 'A distinction has to be drawn between purpose and consequence. The Federal Court has ordered Lux Distributors Pty Ltd (Lux) pay pecuniary penalties totalling $370,000 for engaging in unconscionable conduct, in The matter will be listed for a directions hearing regarding submissions on relief, including pecuniary penalties. Accc v lux pty ltd 2004 fca 926 unconscionable The sales presentation lasted more than 1 1/2 hours with the goal of pressuring customers to buy expensive products. in the context of consumer dealings, the requirements of honest and fair conduct, free of deception. 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. 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. 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 In 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 engaged in conduct that was unconscionable in contravention of section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law. (No 12) [2016] FCA 822, Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2011] FCAFC 58 (4 May 2011), Fortescue Metals Group Limited; In the Matter of [2010] ACompT 2. However, in the Lux case, the Full Federal Court did not seek to identify whether the elderly consumers suffered from any special disadvantage. WebACCC v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd (trading as Supagas NSW) and Speed-E-Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1135 Cartel conduct - agreed penalties totalling $8.3 million ACCC v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (1997) ATPR 41568Price fixing. Sentenced to 32 months imprisonment and $50,000 + disqualification from directorship. 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. Inicio; Nosotros; Servicios; Contacto (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. SeeACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 152 (25 September 2017)(dismissed), ACCC v Cement Australia [2016] FCA 453Penalties:Penalty judgment (anti-competitive agreements)Penalty appealed(successfully):ACCC v v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 159Substantive judgment:ACCC v Cement Australia [2013] FCA 909 (10 September 2013), ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 676 (Woolworths)ACCC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 528 (Colgate)Cartels:Cartel conduct / price fixing (agreement or mere oligopolistic behaviour)Consent proceedings with Colgate and Woolworths; contested proceedings against Cussons decided in 2017, ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Limited [2016] HCA 49 Cartels(agency arrangements)Full Federal Court:Flight Centre Limited v ACCC [2015] FCAFC 104Trial decision:ACCC v Flight Centre Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 1313 (6 December 2013), ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 (21 March 2016)Cartels (price fixing)Market definition:'market in Australia'; s 4EAppeal from:ACCC v Air New Zealand Limited [2014] FCA 1157Appealed to High Court:Air New Zealand Ltd v ACCC; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v ACCC [2017] HCA 21, ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. The pecuniary penalty to be imposed on Lux is yet to be decided and will be the subject of further submissions. The task of the Court is the evaluation of the facts by reference to a normative standard of conscience. ACCC v Lux: the federal court provides clarity on The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Honda Australia Pty Ltd for making false or misleading representations to consumers about two former authorised Honda dealerships, Brighton Automotive Holdings Pty Ltd (Astoria) in Victoria and Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (Tynan) in NSW. 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. When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. That normative standard is permeated with accepted and acceptable community values. 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 Metcash Trading Limited [2011] FCA 967 (25 August 2011); [2001] FCAFC 151 (30 November 2011)Merger - held merger not likely to SLC. Coles misused its, bargaining power. 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. notions of justice and fairness as well as vulnerability, advantage and honesty. Guilty plea. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. JD Supra: Federal Court Clarifies Unconscionable Conduct Law The Court also said (t)he norms and standards of today require businesses who wish to gain access to the homes of people for extended selling opportunities to exhibit honesty and openness in what they are doing, not to apply deceptive ruses to gain entry. Competition, Consumer Law | We want take a moment to . http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/full-federal-court-declares-lux-conduct-unconscionable. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Fine of $34.5 million, ACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 1019 Justice FinkelsteinCartels: Alleged cartel conduct (dismissed) (subject to appeal), Appealed:ACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC154(appeal dismissed), ACCC v Pfizer [2018] FCAFC Justices Greenwood, Middleton, FosterMisuse of market power:Alleged abuse of power - various rebate agreements entered into ahead of patent expiry (Lipitor) (pre Harper-reforms to s 46); Exclusive dealing: Alleged supply on condition pharmacists would not stuck other products except to a limited extent (claim failed), ACCC v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73 Cartels (penalites): Cartel conduct (penalty appeal), Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. This envisaged circumstances which seriously affected the ability of the person to make a judgment as to his or her best interests . It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards. 3.55 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926. ACCC v NQCranes Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1383 (23 November 2022) (Justice Abraham)Market sharing. 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. Notions of justice and fairness are central, as are vulnerability, advantage and honesty., It concluded: WebCommission v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926: 169-172, 180 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 174: 169 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. The clear impression I have gained from the evidence is that FLC's purpose in acting as it did was not to get rid of or damage Berlaz as a competitor, although no doubt FLC knew that terminating the distributorship would be likely to have one or both of those results.' Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. 3.53 Astvilla Pty Ltd v Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria [2006] VSC. This renewed emphasis upon the conduct of the alleged perpetrator, rather than whether the alleged victim possessed a special disadvantage, represents an important development in the statutory offence of unconscionable conduct. Proceedings continued against other respondents, See:ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. 3.56 ACCC v Radio Rentals [2005 Court determined single mother of three Kellie Brown was a victim of misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct by Livio Cellante, Perna Pty Ltd and Astvilla http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html, http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2004/1141839.htm, http://www.smokeball.com/ProductInfo/9925/FG/343, http://www.cylex.com.au/real%20estate%20development.html, http://www.magistratescases.com.au/search.php?search_catonly=4&action=search, http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/aus/academic/LNConnect/Business_Commercial/LawInCommerce_3ed/CaseLinks.asp, http://sydney.edu.au/lec/subjects/commercial/topic_notes/Winter%202010/Module%204%20-%20Trade%20Practices%20WInter2010.ppt, http://sydney.edu.au/lec/subjects/commercial/topic_notes/Summer%202010-11/Module%204%20Supply%20Goods%20&%20Services%20Summer%201011.ppt, We and third party providers from us use cookies on our pages. The existence of cooling-off periods would not counter the unconscionable conduct that had taken place. (No 12) [2016] FCA 822Cartels (price fixing (bid rigging))Jurisdiction(extraterritoriality)Note: Prysmian unsuccessfully appealed (Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L.