Morwood, Ian David & Anor v Chemdata Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1471

Morwood, Ian David & Anor v Chemdata Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1471

The appeal failed because the appellants did not establish the existence of a prescription data market in Australia, so their s 46 misuse of market power case could not succeed. Their s 45(2)(b) case also failed: Chemdata and its licensed pharmacists were not competitive with each other for the purposes of an exclusionary provision, and clause 8 of the licence, properly construed, was confined to Chemdata's software, improvements, modifications, updates and related confidential information, not information entered by pharmacists into the database.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Trade Practices Act 1974 Proceedings / Appeal From Lockhart J's Dismissal of the Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misuse of Market Power' 'restrictive Trade Practices' 'relevant Market Identification' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'exclusionary Provisions' 'software Licence Agreement']
['trade Practices' 'competition Law'] ['misuse of Market Power' 'restrictive Trade Practices' 'relevant Market Identification' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'exclusionary Provisions' 'software Licence Agreement']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Trade Practices Act 1974 Proceedings / Appeal From Lockhart J's Dismissal of the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants established the existence of the dispensary software market and the prescription data market relied on for the s 46 case.' 'Whether sub-clauses 8(a), 8(b) and 8(d) of the Chemdata licence contravened s 45(2)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'Whether clause 8 of the Chemdata licence constituted an exclusionary provision or had the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a market.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellants did not establish the existence of a prescription data market in Australia, so their s 46 misuse of market power case could not succeed. Their s 45(2)(b) case also failed: Chemdata and its licensed pharmacists were not competitive with each other for the purposes of an exclusionary provision, and clause 8 of the licence, properly construed, was confined to Chemdata's software, improvements, modifications, updates and related confidential information, not information entered by pharmacists into the database.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]