accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926

Before this decision, the meaning of the word "unconscionable" was the subject to differing views which resulted in differing judgments. 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 Competition, Consumer Law | 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. purported benefits of the ARC program to their small business. Webaccc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926examples of counterculture and subculture. Parallel conduct. The ACCC acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands across Australia on which we live and work. The ACCC alleged that a Lux sales representative called upon five elderly women in their homes under the premise of a free vacuum cleaner maintenance check, and that each of the women was then subjected to unfair and pressuring sales tactics to induce them into purchasing a vacuum cleaner for a price of up to $2280. Here, however, they can be seen to be honesty and fairness in the dealing with consumers. The Full Federal Court instead evaluated the conduct of Lux's sales representatives against a "normative standard of conscience" permeated with "accepted and acceptable community values", which in the circumstances of this case required honesty, fair dealing and no deception. ACCC appeal failed. The matter will be listed for a directions hearing regarding submissions on relief, including pecuniary penalties. 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. CaseLinks2010 - Legal, Government, Corporate Solutions - Global https://www.tuugo.biz/Companies/astvilla/0050001741645, Real Estate & Insurance Templestowe Lower. Webaccc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926horse heaven hills road conditionshorse heaven hills road conditions ACCC v NQCranes Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1383 (23 November 2022) (Justice Abraham)Market sharing. 3.55 ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926. Following this successful appeal and consistent with the ACCC's express enforcement priorities, the ACCC Chairman has alluded to continued enforcement action, especially in cases involving "vulnerable consumers and where there have been other breaches of consumer protection provisions of the ACL". Guilty plea. Full Federal Court declares Lux conduct unconscionable These considerations are central to the evaluation of the facts by reference to the operative norm of required conscionable conduct.. The Appeal 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. 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. When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. Help desk Ask W3C's easy-to-use markup validation service, based on SGML and XML parsers. 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 (b) this section is capable of applying to a system of conduct or pattern of behaviour, whether or not a particular individual is identified as having been disadvantaged by the, (c) in considering whether conduct to which a contract relates is unconscionable, a courts, consideration of the contract may include consideration of:(i) the terms of the contract; and. 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. News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45Deals with s 45's prohibition of exclusionary provisions in relation to South Sydney's exclusion from the national rugby competition in 2000. (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. It has maintained its pre-eminence as one of the most important journals of its kind encompassing Human Rights and European Law. (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. Admitted conduct. accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 The pecuniary penalty to be imposed on Lux is yet to be decided and will be the subject of further submissions. accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Ltd Other areas of Wikipedia. 3.56 ACCC v Radio Rentals [2005 Australia Real Estate That normative standard is permeated with accepted and acceptable community values. 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.. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Background to the Case 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. Community portal Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. The task of the Court is the evaluation of the facts by reference to a normative standard of conscience. Lux ordered to pay $370,000 penalty for unconscionable At first instance, Justice Jessup found that Lux did not engage in unconscionable conduct. In a number of earlier cases, a person needed to have a "special disadvantage" in order to be susceptible to unconscionable conduct. . We acknowledge their connection to this Country and pay our respect to Elders past, present and emerging. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd; [2013] FCAFC 90 - Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Agreed penalties, CDPP v Vina Money Transfer Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 665 (9 June 2022)(Justice Abraham)First criminal cartel conviction imposing jail sentences (guilty plea), ACCC v Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 308 (25 March 2022)[Australasian Food Group trading as Peters Ice Cream]Exclusive dealing in relation to sale of ice-cream at service stations, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 98 (Justice Downes)Boycott (s 45E), ACCC v B&K Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 260 (24 March 2021) Resale price maintenance - admitted contraventions - agreed penalty, ACCC v IVF Finance Pty Limited (No 2) [2021] FCA 1295Mergers (interlocutory injunction), ACCC v NSW Ports Operations Hold Co Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 720 (29 June 2021)Anti-competitive agreement (appeal lodged 2021), ACCC v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 482Misuse of market power (declared by consent), Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS [2021] FCA 52Criminal Cartel - conviction (followed guilty plea) and sentence - fine of AU$24mJustice Wigney, Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty LtdvAustralian Competition Tribunal[2020] FCAFC 145Appeal from Australian Competition TribunalApplication by Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd[2019] ACompT 1Appeal allowed: Allsop CJ, Beach and Colvin JJ, TX Australia Pty Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2020]FCA 1100Access - whether ACCC had jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute - communications law, ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77 Appeal fromACCC v Pacific National Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 669 (Justice Beach)(15 May 2019)Mergers:Acquisition involving Queensland rail terminal (s 50 CCA)(held insufficient evidence of likely SLC), Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited [2020] FCA 308Misuse of market power and exclusive dealing (case dismissed), Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Limited v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission[2020] FCA 117 (Federal Court)Mergers (held merger not. WebStatutory Unconscionability ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 926 (f) whether conduct complained of is consistent with conduct in other similar business transactions; (g) & (h) Note. As the national consumer protection regulator, consumer protection issues that affect vulnerable members of the community and unconscionable conduct are priority areas for the ACCC, Ms Court said. The substantial penalties imposed against Lux reflect the nature of the breaches, which involved taking advantage of a deliberate ruse to gain access to consumers homes and then engaging in pressure sales tactics so that these vulnerable consumers agreed to make a purchase, ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said. 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." v ACCC [2018] FCAFC 30), See alsoACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 5) [2013] FCA 294 (5 April 2013) (Justice Lander)Price fixing/bid rigging (admissions and agreed order between Viscas/ACCC), ACCC v ANZ Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103 (31 July 2015)(Chief Justice Allsop, Justice Davies, Justice Wigney), Price fixing:price fixing and agency arrangements (alleged agreement to limit the amount of refund that could be provided by agent) (claim dismissed - no price fixing), Appeal from:ACCC v ANZ Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 (18 November 2013) (Justice Dowsett), ACCC v Little Company of Mary Health Care Ltd [2015] FCA 1144 (Justice Robertson), Exclusive dealing (s 47):conditional acquisition of medial services from medical practitioners - effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in relevant market (contravention admitted), Practice and procedure:discretion to make declaration where statement of agreeed facts, proposed consent orders - no pecuniary penalty sought, ACCC v Pfizer [2015] FCA(Justice Flick), Misuse of market power:Alleged abuse of power - various rebate agreements entered into ahead of patent expiry (Lipitor) (pre Harper-reforms to s 46) (no contravention found), Exclusive dealing: Alleged supply on condition pharmacists would not stuck other products except to a limited extent (no contravention found), Appealed(unsuccessfully) to Full Federal Court:ACCC v Pfizer [2018] FCAFC (25 May 2018), Special leaveto appeal to High Court refused, ACCC v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020(Justice Wigney), Exclusive dealing:section 47 - admitted conduct - related to moratorium on Dynamic Currency Conversion service, Penalty: relevant principles discussed (s 76) - $18m penalty imposed, ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304, Appeal on penalty (successful):ACCC v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73. Flight Centre Limited v ACCC [2015] FCAFC 104Chief Justice Allsop, Justice Davies, Justice Wigney, Appeal to High Court (successful):ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Limited [2016] HCA 49, Appeal from:ACCC v Flight Centre Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 1313 (6 Dec 2013), ACCC v Air New Zealand Limited [2014] FCA 1157Price fixing; 'market in Australia'; s 4E, Appealed to Full Federal Court:ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016] FCAFC 42 (21 March 2016), Appealed to High Court:Air New Zealand Ltd v ACCC; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v ACCC [2017] HCA 21, ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405Unconscionable conduct (consent orders), ACCC v Coles Group Limited [2014] FCA 363; ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2014] FCA 364 (14 April 2014)Enforceable undertakings (whether breached) - shopper dockets, ACCC v NSK Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 453 (13 May 2014)Price fixing (admitted), ACCC v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd (trading as Supagas NSW) and Speed-E-Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1135Cartel conduct - agreed penalties totalling $8.3 million (contraventions admitted) - cooperation, Obeid v ACCC [2014] FCA 839 (8 August 2014)Validity of section 155 notices, Tooltechnic Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd - Authorisation - A91433 [5 December 2014]RPM authorisation, ACCC v ANZ Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 (18 November 2013)Price fixing, ACCC v Cement Australia [2013] FCA 909 (10 September 2013)Anti-competitive agreements, misuse of market power, Penalty judgment:ACCC v Cement Australia [2016] FCA 453Appeal against penalty successful:ACCC v v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 159, ACCC v Flight Centre Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 1313 (6 Dec 2013)(Justice Logan), Appeal to Full Federal Court:Flight Centre Limited v ACCC [2015] FCAFC 104, Appeal to High Court:ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Limited [2016] HCA 49, ACCC v Koyo Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 105 (18 October 2013)Admitted cartel conduct - penalties by consent, ACCC v Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1413 (19 December 2013) Resale price maintenance (admitted conduct), ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 5) [2013] FCA 294 (5 April 2013) (Justice Lander)Price fixing/bid rigging (admissions and agreed order between Viscas/ACCC). By continuing to browse our pages you agree to that and accept our, 5401 Olympic Los Angeles Filming Location, Apple - iPhone 4 - Video calls, multitasking, HD video, and more, Firefox web browser | Help us test the latest beta, U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute. It is not limited to traditional equitable, or common law notions of unconscionability: Australian Competition & Consumer, Commission v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd It bears its ordinary meaning of. The ACCC instituted proceedings against Lux in May 2012. 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 . The existence of cooling-off periods would not counter the unconscionable conduct that had taken place. In particular, the decision has important implications for conduct which occurs in breach of consumer protection legislation, particularly where this conduct involves vulnerable consumers.. accc v lux pty ltd [2004] fca 926 (No 12) [2016] FCA 822Cartels (price fixing (bid rigging))Jurisdiction(extraterritoriality)Note: Prysmian unsuccessfully appealed (Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. 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. 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 was contrary to, conscience. to commercial transactions if it can be shown that the parties were of equal standing, but should be satisfied in relation to sales to members of the public. On appeal, the Full Federal Court agreed with the ACCC and found Lux engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of s21 of the ACL. 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. (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. ACCC appeals unconscionable conduct decision4 March 2013, Federal Court dismisses unconscionable conduct case8 February 2013, ACCC alleges unconscionable conduct by vacuum cleaner retailer10 May 2012. 21st August, 2013 by David Jacobson. WebACCC v Lux Pty Ltd 2004 FCA 926 Unconscionable conduct The word unconscionable. 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. Inicio; Nosotros; Servicios; Contacto Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux This decision is likely to encourage the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to maintain unconscionable conduct as an enforcement priority. Enter a search term above to find Dictionary definitions or click the Thesaurus tab to find synonyms and antonyms. table of Cases 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 http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/full-federal-court-declares-lux-conduct-unconscionable. JD Supra: Federal Court Clarifies Unconscionable Conduct Law Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 124Access, Tabcorp Holdings and Tatts Group - proposed merger (ACT 1 of 2017)Mergers (authorisation):Tribunal decision on merger authorisation, ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] FCA 1516Cartels (penalties):Attempted cartel conduct (admitted) (penalties imposed higher than those 'agreed'), ACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited [2016] FCA 69Cartels (attempt)Appealed. We acknowledge their connection to this Country and pay our respect to Elders past, present and emerging. ACCC v Lux: the federal court provides clarity on 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.

Sharon Ramsey Wedding Ring, Gramma And Ginga Obituary, Atlanta, Georgia Recent Obituaries, Kari Lake Husband Jeff Halperin, Menasha High School Calendar, Articles A