DIPLOMA IN LAW
LEGAL PROFESSION
ADMISSION BOARD
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE SUBJECT GUIDE
25 COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
WINTER SESSION 2016
This Guide includes the Law Extension Committee’s course information and teaching program and the
Legal Profession Admission Board’s syllabus. The syllabus is contained under the heading “Prescribed
Topics and Course Outline” and has been prepared in accordance with Rule 27H(a) of the NSW
Admission Board Rules 2015.
Course Description and Objectives
Lecturer
Assessment
September 2016 Examination
Lecture Program
Texts and Materials
Compulsory Assignment
Assignment Question
Sample Examination Question
Case List
1
2
2-3
3
3-4
4-5
5
5-6
6
7-9
1
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE
WINTER 2016
25 COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
The Competition and Consumer Act (Cth) 2011 ("CCA”), incorporating the Australian Consumer Law
("ACL"), affects every aspect of commercial and consumer life. The CCA/ACL (previously titled the
Trade Practices Act 1974) brings together a number of national, state and territory laws to ensure
consistency in the rights of consumers. The CCA contains prohibitions pertaining to:

restrictive trade practices

deceptive trade practices; and

product liability.
The restrictive trade practices provisions prohibit:

collective/collusive practices (via contracts, arrangements or understandings) in the form of
cartels and the creation of exclusionary provisions; and

unilateral business practices which can damage competition in markets for goods and
services in Australia, such as by the misuse of market power, exclusive dealings, resale price
maintenance, problematic mergers and acquisitions etc.
The ACL is concerned with:

deceptive/unconscionable/unfair conduct by persons in trade or commerce. “Persons” include
body corporates (e.g. businesses) and body politics;

Statutory guarantees and other forms of product liability.
Breaches of the CCA and ACL can attract heavy penalties, damages and other orders.
The course is designed to examine, understand and apply:

the jurisdictional limits of the CCA/ ACL;

the structure and application of key sections of the CCA/ACL and the relevant cases;

means of ensuring that “persons” including “consumers” and businesses, are protected
from misleading & deceptive/unconscionable conduct & sharp practices;

product liability rights, including statutory guarantees applying to all consumer contracts;
and

enforcement/penalties/remedy provisions of the CCA and the remedy provisions of the ACL.
2
LECTURER
Mr J S Mendel, BCom (UNSW), LLB (UTS)
Mr Mendel was admitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia in
1990.
He is a practising Sydney barrister, a court appointed arbitrator (since 2004), university lecturer in
competition and consumer law (since 1991), presenter at legal professional development seminars
and a member of the Australasian Law Teachers Association.
ASSESSMENT
To be eligible to sit for the Board’s examinations, all students must complete the LEC teaching and
learning program, the first step of which is to ensure that you have registered online with the LEC in
each subject for which you have enrolled with the Board. This gives you access to the full range of
learning resources offered by the LEC.
To register with the LEC, go to www.sydney.edu.au/lec and click on the WEBCAMPUS link and follow
the instructions. Detailed guides to the Webcampus are contained in the material distributed by the
LEC, in the Course Information Handbook, and on the Webcampus.
Eligibility to Sit for Examinations
In accordance with the Legal Profession Admission Rules, the LEC must be satisfied with a student’s
performance in a subject in order for the student to be eligible to sit for the examination, conducted by
the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB).
Assignment results are used to determine eligibility to sit for the final exam.
Students are expected to achieve at least a pass mark of 50% in assignments to be eligible. However,
a category of “deemed eligible to sit for examinations” has been introduced to offer students whose
assignment mark is between 40-49% an opportunity to sit for the examination. A mark below 40%
means a student is not eligible to sit for the examination.
Assignments as part of the Board’s Examinations
Assignment results contribute 20% to the final mark in each subject.
The Law Extension Committee (LEC) administers the setting and marking of assignments. The LEC
engages the LPAB’s examiners to assess or supervise the assessment of assignments.
Submission of Assignment
Assignments must be received by 11:59pm on the due date unless an extension has been granted.
Extensions must be requested by email prior to the due date. Supporting evidence must be provided.
Assignments that are more than ten days late will not be accepted. Late assignments attract a penalty
of one mark out of 20, or 5% of the total marks available, per day.
Assessment of Assignment
Assignments are assessed according to the “Assignment Grading and Assessment Criteria” outlined
in the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments.
Prior to the examination, assignments will be returned to students and results posted on students’
individual results pages of the LEC Webcampus. Students are responsible for checking their results
and ascertaining their eligibility to sit for the examination.
3
Review
Where a student’s overall mark after the examination is between 40-49%, the student’s assignment in
that subject will be included in the Revising Examiner’s review.
The final examination mark is determined in accordance with this review. Assignment marks will not
otherwise be reviewed.
SEPTEMBER 2016 EXAMINATION
Candidates will be expected to have made a study of the prescribed materials in relation to the topics
identified hereunder, and to have analysed the cases and statutory provisions referred to in the LEC's
Subject Guide. Please direct all enquiries in relation to examinations to the LPAB.
LECTURE PROGRAMME: WEEKEND SCHOOL MODE
This elective subject will be offered only in Weekend School mode for the Winter 2016 Semester.
The lecture programme should be read in conjunction with the synopsis of the subject.
LECTURES ON WEEKEND SCHOOL 1 (28-29 May 2016)
Saturday 28 May 2016: 8.00am – noon in New Law School Seminar Room 115 (New LSSR 115)
Sunday 29 May 2016: noon – 4.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115 (New LSSR 115)
TOPIC
Introduction to the CCA/ACL.
SECTIONS OF CCA
Constitutional issues; Extended jurisdiction of the CCA;
Extension to Federal/State/Territory Governments
ss 2A, 2B, 2C
Definitions in CCA
ss 4, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4F,
4G, 4K
Competition policy and its significance to the CCA,
Markets & derivation of markets
CCA PART IV: RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
s 4E
Cartel Conduct
Offences
Division 1
s 44ZZRF-RK
Contracts, arrangements or understandings that restrict
dealings or affect competition
Exclusionary provisions
Misuse of:
·
market power &
·
of any substantial share of a market
Exclusive dealing
s 45
s4D
s 46
s 47
Resale price maintenance
s 48 and Part VIII
Mergers and acquisitions
s 50
4
LECTURES ON WEEKEND SCHOOL 2 (23-24 July 2016)
Saturday 23 July 2016: 8.00am – noon in New Law School Seminar Room 115 (New LSSR 115)
Sunday 24 July 2016: noon – 4.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115 (New LSSR 115)
TOPIC
ACL: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
SECTIONS OF ACL
Definitions
Chapter 1 ss 2, 3
Representations as to future matters: promises and
predictions
s4
Misleading or deceptive conduct
Unconscionable conduct; unconscionable conduct in
connection with goods and services
Part 2 – 1: s 18
Part 2 – 2: s 20, s 21
s 22
Industry codes (mandatory and voluntary codes)
Unfair contract terms
Part IVB CCA
Part 2 – 3
Unfair practices
Part 3 – 1: ss 29, 30, 33,
34, 35, 47, 48, 50
ACL: PRODUCT LIABILITY
Statutory consumer guarantees
Action against suppliers of goods failing to meet certain
criteria
Liability of manufacturers for goods containing a safety
defect
ENFORCEMENT, REMEDIES
Enforcement and Penalties for breaches of Part IV
Part 3 – 2, Division 1
Part 5 – 4
Part 3 – 5
CCA ss 75B, 76, 79, 85
CCA ss 80, 81, 82, 87
Defences,
Re Remedies for breaches of the ACL
/ Orders; Person "involved in contravention"
ACL Chapter 5
TEXTS AND MATERIALS
For the period from 21 April to 30 May 2016, LexisNexis is offering our students a special discount and free
shipping on purchases made through the LexisNexis e-store at www.store.lexisnexis.com.au. Students quoting
the promo code LECW2016 will receive a 15% discount on all text titles (except for those authored by John
Carter). This discount is not limited to the prescribed or recommended texts for our courses. Students should,
however, still compare LexisNexis’s discounted price with that of other outlets. The Co-op Bookshop, for example,
offers a discount on texts sold to its members.
Course Materials
Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments and synopsis for the subject (available on
the LEC Webcampus)
Prescribed Materials


Miller’s Australian Competition & Consumer Law Annotated, 38th ed. Thomson Reuters, 2016
OR
Steinwell, Annotated Competitions & Consumer Legislation, 2016 ed. LexisNexis
5
Recommended acquisition: Reference Materials (A publication containing a discussion/extracts of
the main cases).










Steinwall et al., Australian Competition Law, LexisNexis, 2000 (out of print – check Law Library)
Lockhart, The Law of Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, 3rd ed. LexisNexis, 2011
P Vout (ed), Unconscionable Conduct - The Laws of Australia, The Lawbook Company, 2009
Sweeney, Bender, Courmadias, Marketing and the Law, 2015 LexisNexis
Corones, Competition Law in Australia, 6h ed. Thomson Reuters, 2014
Bruce, Consumer Protection in Australia, 2nd ed. LexisNexis, 2013
Bruce, Competition Law in Australia, 2nd ed. LexisNexis, 2013
Duns and Duke Competition Law Cases and Materials 4th ed 2015 LexisNexis
Corones & Clarke, Australian Consumer Law: Commentary & Materials, 5th ed. Thomson
Reuters, 2015
Coorey Australian Consumer Law 2015 LexisNexis
Other Materials
Students are also referred to various recent commercial/business law publications which include
chapters on the TPA/CCA, e.g. K Lindgren Vermeesch & Lindgren Business Law of Australia 12th ed
LexisNexis 2011, Turner, Australian Commercial Law, Thomson Reuters 2010; Pearson & Fisher,
Commercial Law Commentary and Materials, Thomson Reuters, 2010; the loose leaf service on the
CCA; relevant seminar papers and articles published in law journals.
LEC Webcampus
Once you have registered online with the LEC, you will have full access to all the facilities on the LEC
Webcampus in the Course Materials section.
COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENT
There is ONE ASSIGNMENT. It must be submitted by the due date. The pass mark is 50%.
(Refer to the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments for the assignment
grading and assessment criteria.) Students who fail to satisfy the compulsory requirements
will be notified through the Results screen on the Webcampus before the examination period
of their ineligibility to sit the examination in this subject. The maximum word limit for the
assignment is 2000 words (inclusive of all footnotes but not bibliography).
The rules regarding the presentation of assignments and instructions on how to submit an assignment
are set out in the LEC Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments which can be
accessed on the LEC Webcampus. Please read this guide carefully before completing and submitting
an assignment.
The completed assignment should be lodged through the LEC Webcampus, arriving by 11:59pm on
the following date:
Compulsory Assignment
Wednesday 13 July 2016
(Week 8)
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
To obtain the Competition and Consumer Law assignment question for the Winter Session
2016, please follow the instructions below:
1.
Register online with the LEC (see page 26 of the Course Information Handbook for detailed
instructions). Once you have registered, you will have full access to all the facilities on the
LEC Webcampus.
6
2.
Then go into the Webcampus, select the Course Materials section and click on the link to
the assignment questions for this subject.
SAMPLE EXAMINATION QUESTION
Sparkle P/L, Glitter P/L and Radiance (a partnership between Ray Ruby and Crystal Clear) are the 3
largest opal merchants in Australia.
They purchase their opals directly from long term trusted sources, namely each other, opal miners at
Lightening Ridge and other opal merchants/jewellers.
They have never experienced any problems.
Agreements are faxed or emailed. They all contain a standard disclaimer clause which includes the
words “.....the purchaser takes full responsibility for making all necessary inquiries regarding the opals
as ordered. The Supplier offers no warranty”.
On 15 January at 8.30 am, Radiance offered both Sparkle and Glitter, by email from Clear:
“2 lots of 10 rare, flawless, Lighting Ridge black opals ….At bargain price of $1.5 million per lot.
Acceptance and electronic transfer payment required by 11.30am”
Radiance had bought the opals from “Shifty” Spanah at 8am for $200,000 in cash. Ordinarily no
reputable opal retailer would deal with Spanah.
By email, Sparkle immediately confirmed the offer and agreed to the purchase of one lot (10 opals). At
10.00am, Sparkle electronically transferred $1.5 million into Radiance’s account.
Glitter requested confirmation that the opals came from an impeccable source. Clear sent a fax which
stated “this is a once in a life time offer. The opals are exquisite. If it wasn’t for the current credit
crunch we would keep them as an investment”.
Glitter proceeded to buy the second lot of 10 opals, at about 10.45am.
After paying $200,000 to Spanah and receiving $1.5 million from Sparkle but before receiving $1.5
million from Glitter, Clear, whilst reading “breaking news” on the web, saw that a Lightning Ridge miner
had reported the theft of a bag of black opals on 13 January.
The police have recovered the black opals from Sparkle and Glitter and intend to return them to the
opal miner. Spanah has disappeared.
About half of the opals supplied to Sparkle and Glitter turned out to be of second-rate black opals from
Brazil, worth a mere fraction of the genuine article.
Advise Sparkle and Glitter as to their rights against Radiance.
7
CASE LIST
1.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
EXTENDED JURISDICTION,
DEFINITIONS
R v Federal Court of Australia: ex parte W A
National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190
State Superannuation Board of Victoria v TPC
(1982) 150 CLR 282
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Hughes v WACA (1986) 69 ALR 660
E v The Australian Red Cross Society (1991)
99 ALR 601 at 630-47
SGIC v GIO of NSW (1991) 101 ALR 259
Dataflow P/ L v Goodman (1999) 168 ALR 169
Application to Governments
JS McMillan P/ L v C’w (1997) 77 FCR 337
State of NSW v R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments
P/L; R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments P/L v State
of NSW [2003] NSWCA 54
Village Building v Canberra International
Airport (No 2) 2004 208 ALR 98
NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and
Water Authority [2004] 210 ALR 312
“In Trade or Commerce”
Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson
(1990) 169 CLR 594
Australian
Federation
of
Consumer
Organisations v Tobacco Institute of Australia
(1991) 98 ALR 670
Pears v Balzer (1996) 137 ALR 180
Martin v TDR (1999) 163 ALR 79
McCormick
v
Riverwood
International
(Australia) Pty Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 689
Pritchard v Racecage (1997) 142 ALR 527
Village Building v Canberra International
Airport (No 2) 2004 208 ALR 98; FCFCA210
ALR 114
Fletcher v Nextra Australia P/L (2015) FCAFC
52
Conduct by Silence
Demagogue v Ramensky (1992) 110 ALR 608,
Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Berrigan Weed & Pest
Control Pty Ltd (1998) 155 ALR 714
Peninsular Balmain Pty Ltd v Abigroup
Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 211
Metalcorp Recyclers Pty Ltd v Metal
Manufacturers [2004] ATPR 46-243
2.
PART IV OF THE ACT – RESTRICTIVE
TRADE PRACTICES
(a) Definition of “market”, competition
policy
Mark Lyons v Bursill Sportsgear (1987) 75 ALR
581
Qld Co-op Milling Assoc (1976) 8 ALR 481
Singapore Airlines v Taprobane Tours WA
(1991) 104 ALR 633
Australian Meat Holdings v Trade Practices
Commission (“TPC”) (1989) 11 ATPR 40-932
TPC v A I &S (1990) 92 ALR 395
TPC v Arnotts (1990) 97 ALR 555
ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2016]
FCAFC 49
(b) Cartel Conduct – Division 1
Note cases referred to under s 45
(c) Section 45: anti-competitive non-price
Top Performance Motors v Ira Berk
(Queensland) (1975) 5 ALR 465
TPC v Nicholas Enterprises (No. 2) (1979) 26
ALR 609
Morphett Arms Hotel v TPC (1980) 30 ALR 88
TPC v Email (1980) 43 FLR 383
TPC v Ansett Transport (1978) 20 ALR 31
O'Brien Glass v Cool & Sons (1983) 48 ALR
625
Radio 2UE v Stereo FM (1982) 44 ALR 557
TPC v Tubemakers (1983) 5 ATPR 40-358
TPC v David Jones (Aust) (1986) 64 ALR 67
TPC v Service Station Association (1993) 116
ALR 643
News Limited v Australian Rugby Football
League Limited (1996) 139 ALR 193
ACCC v CC (NSW) P/L (1999) 165 ALR 468
News Limited v South Sydney District Rugby
League Football Club Ltd [2003] 200 ALR 157
Visy Paper P/ L v ACCC [2003] 201 ALR 414
Rural Press Ltd v ACCC [2003] 203 ALR 217
Apco Pty Ltd v ACCC [2005] FCAFC 161
ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] 160
FCR 321
(d) Section 46: misuse of market power
Top Performance Motors v Ira Berk
(Queensland) (1975) 5 ALR 465
Victorian Egg Marketing Board v Parkwood
Eggs (1978) 33 FLR 294
TPC v CSBP and Farmers (1980) 53 FLR 135
Mark Lyons v Bursill Sportsgear (1987) 75 ALR
581
8
Queensland Wire Industries v BHP (1989) 167
CLR 177
ASX v Pont Data (1990) 97 ALR 513
Eastern Express v General Newspapers
(1992) 106 ALR 297
Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd (1992) 106
ALR 75
General Newspapers v Telstra Corp (1993) 45
FCR 164, 117 ALR 629 A
Sita Qld Pty Ltd v Q’land (1999) 164 ALR 18
Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty
Ltd (2001) 178 ALR 253
Monroe Topple & Associates v Institute of
Chartered Accountants; (2002) ATPR 41-879
Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC [2003] 195
ALR 609
ACCC v Cement Australia P/ L [2013] 210 ALR
165
ACCC v Pfizer Aust P/Ltd [2015] FCA 113
(e)
Section 47: exclusive dealing (solus
agreements, vertical customer and
territorial restraints, third line forcing)
S W B Family Credit Union v Parramatta
Tourist Services (1980) 48 FLR 445
Victorian Egg Marketing Board v Parkwood
Eggs (1978) 33 FLR 294
TPC v Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-operative
Society (1978) 35 FLR 372
Dandy Power Equipment v Mercury Marine
(1982) 44 ALR 173
Outboard Marine Aust v Hecar Investments
(No 6) (1982) 44 ALR 667
O'Brien Glass v Cool (1983) 48 ALR 625
Castlemaine Tooheys v Williams and Hodgson
Transport (1986) 162 CLR 395
Paul Dainty Corporation v National Tennis
Centre Trust (1990) 94 ALR 225
ACCC v Health Partners (1997) 151 ALR 662
Munroe Topple & Associates v Institute of
Chartered Accountants; (2002) ATPR 41-879
Universal Music v ACCC [2003] 201 ALR 639
ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Ltd (No 2)
(2001) 119 FCR 1
(f)
Sections 48 and 96-100: resale price
maintenance
Bata Shoe Co -Aust v TPC (1980) 44 FLR 149
Ron Hodgson (Holdings) v Westco Motors
(Distributors) (1980) 29 ALR 307
TPC v Mobil Oil Australia (1984) 55 ALR 527
BP Australia v TPC (1986) 66 ALR 148
Heating Centre v TPC (1986) 65 ALR 429
TPC v Penfolds Wines (1992) ATPR 41-163
ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Ltd (1997)
145 ALR 36 & (No 2) (2001) 119 FCR 1
ACCC v Dermalogica P/L (2005) 215 ALR 482
ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007]
FCA 79
(g) Section 50: mergers/acquisitions
TPC v Ansett Transport Industries (1978) 32
FLR 305
TPC v Bowral Brickworks (1984) 55 ALR 733
Australian Meat Holdings v TPC (1989) 11
ATPR 40-932
TPC v Aust Iron and Steel (1990) 92 ALR 395
TPC v Arnotts (1990) 97 ALR 555
3.
THE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
(ACL)
(a)
Predictions and promises
ACCC v IMB Group [1999] FCA 819
O'Neill v MBF of Australia [2002] 122 FCR 455
Sykes v Reserve Bank (1988) 88 FCR 511,
158 ALR 710
Awad v Twin Creeks Properties Proprietary Ltd
[2012] NSWCA 200 (3/7/12)
Samsung Electronics Australia proprietary
limited v L G Electronics Australia AFC 2015
(b)
Misleading and deceptive conduct
Hornsby Building Info Centre v Sydney
Building Info Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216
McDonald's System of Australia v McWilliam's
Wines (No 2) (1979) 41 FLR 429
Taco Co of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982)
42 ALR177
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu
Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society
(1986) 160 CLR 1
Glorie v WA Chip & Pulp (1981) 55 FLR 310
Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville (1988)
79 ALR 83
Campomar Sociedad, Limitada & Anor v Nike
International Ltd & Anor (2000) 169 ALR 677
NSW Dairy Corp v Murray Goulburn Co-op
(1989) 86 ALR 549
Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) P/L v Coles Myer
Ltd (1989) 89 ALR 48
Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 124 ALR
543
NRMA Holdings Ltd v Fraser (1995) 127 ALR
577
Cassidy v Saatchi & Saatchi [2004] ATPR 41980
NSW Lotteries Corp Pty Ltd v Kuzmanovski
[2011] FCAFC 106 (24 August 2011)
ACCC v Breast Check Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 190
Samsung Electronics Australia P/L v LG
Electronics Australia 2015 FCA 227
9
(c)
Unconscionable conduct
Qantas v Cameron (1996) 145 ALR 294
ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 189
ALR 76
Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v Institute
of Chartered Accountants in Australia (2002)
ATPR 41-879
ACCC v Berbatis Holdings [2003] 197 ALR153
ASIC v National Exchange [2005] 147 FCR
132
Leveraged Equities Limited v Goodridge
[2011] FCAFC 3
ACCC v Lux Distributors Proprietary Ltd (2013)
FCAFC 90 (15 August 2013).
Razdam v Westpac Bank [2014] NSWCA 126
(d)
Other sections of ACL
Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661
Global Sportsman v Mirror Newspapers (1984)
55 ALR 25
Brown v The Jam Factory (1981) 53 FLR 340;
35 ALR 79
TPC v Pacific Dunlop (1994) ATPR 41-307
QDSV Holdings (t/as Bush Friends Aust) v
TPC (1995) 131 ALR 493
Kizbean Pty Ltd v W G and B Pty Ltd (1995)
184 CLR 281
Qantas v Cameron (1996) 145 ALR 294
Acohs Pty Ltd v Bashford Consulting (1997)
144 ALR 528; (appeal) Bialkower v Acohs
(1999) ATPR 41-685
Burg Design P/ d v Walli (1999) 162 ALR 639
Kenny & Good v MGICA (1999) 199 CLR 413
Henschke v Rosemount [2001] ATPR 41-793
Cassidy v Saatchi & Saatchi Australia P/L
[2004] 134 FCR 585 ATPR 41-980
ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes (2004) FCA 516
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Limited
(2004) 218 CLR 592
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] HCA 25; 83 ALJR 903
ACCC v Kingisland Meatworks & Cellars FCA
August 2012
Google v ACCC (2013)294 ALR 404
ACCC v Avitalb Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 222 (07
March 2014)
4.
PRODUCT LIABILITY – ACL PARTS 3.2
Div 1, 3 – 5 AND 5 – 4
Glendale Chemical P/L v ACCC (1998) 90
FCR 40
Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] 198 ALR 630
Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] ATPR 42034
5. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES –
PART VI OF CCA & CHAPTER 5 of ACL
(a) Enforcement
TPC v CSR (1991) 13 ATPR 41-076
TPC v Sun Alliance Aust Ltd (1994) ATPR 41286
NW Frozen Foods v ACCC (1996) 141 ALR
640
TPC v Vales Wine Comp Pty Ltd (1996) 145
ALR 241
ACCC v Australia Safeway Stores Pty Ltd
(1997) 145 ALR 36
ACCC v Aust Safeway Stores (No2) [2001]
119 FCR
ACCC v George Weston Ltd & Lonergan
[2004] 210 ALR 486
ACCC v Dermalogica Pty Ltd (2005) 215 ALR
482
ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd [2007]
FCA 79
ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd (No
3) [& Pratt, Debney, Carroll] [2007] FCA 1617
(b) Remedies and related issues
Phelps v Western Mining (1978) 20 ALR 183
World Series Cricket v Parish (1979) 16 ALR
191
Yorke v Lucas (1983) 49 ALR 672
Henjo v Collins Marrickville (1989) 89 ALR 539
State of WA v Wardley Aust (1991) 102 ALR
213
Kizbeau P/L v W G & B L (1995) 184 CLR 281
Gregg v Tasmania Trustees (1997) 143 ALR
328
Marks v GIO Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 497
Truth About Motorways P/L v Macquarie
Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd
(2000) 169 ALR 616
Henville v Walker (2001) 182 ALR 37
Blacker v NAB (2001) ATPR 41-817
I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers
(Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 76 AJLR 1461
Murphy v Overton Invest [2004] 204 ALR 26
HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland
P/Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 79
Unilever Australia v Goodman Fielder
Consumer Foods P/L [2009] FCA 1305
Keller v L E D Technologies Pty Ltd [2010]
(2010) 268 ALR613
ACCC v Powerballwin Com.FC (23/4/10)
NSWLotteries Corp Pty Ltd v Kuzmanovski
[2011] FCAFC 106 (24 August 2011)