Application by AAPT Limited (No 2) [2009] ACompT 6

Application by AAPT Limited (No 2) [2009] ACompT 6

The Tribunal declined to include the pair gain condition in the exemption orders, finding that its implementation would be complex and costly, and that regulatory consistency required its exclusion, as had been done in related WLR/LCS applications.

Parties
Applicant: AAPT Limited; Applicant: Agile Pty Ltd; Applicant: Chime Communications Pty Ltd; Applicant: Macquarie Telecom Pty Limited; Applicant: Powertel Limited; Applicant: Primus Telecommunications Pty Limited; Respondent: Telstra Corporation Limited; Intervener: Optus Networks Pty Ltd; Regulator: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Final Determination and Orders
Outcome
Exemption orders affirmed and varied; pair gain condition not imposed.
Legal Topics
Access Regime, Exemption Orders, Substitution of Services, Pair Gain Condition, Regulatory Consistency
Competition Law Telecommunications Access Regime Exemption Orders Substitution of Services Pair Gain Condition Regulatory Consistency

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAPT Limited

Applicant

Agile Pty Ltd

Applicant

Chime Communications Pty Ltd

Applicant

Macquarie Telecom Pty Limited

Applicant

Powertel Limited

Applicant

Primus Telecommunications Pty Limited

Applicant

Telstra Corporation Limited

Respondent

Optus Networks Pty Ltd

Intervener

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Regulator

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Final Determination and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Telstra should be granted exemption from standard access obligations for PSTN OA service
  2. 2 Whether the exemption orders should include a pair gain condition
  3. 3 Application of s 154AW(4) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) during review

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal declined to include the pair gain condition in the exemption orders, finding that its implementation would be complex and costly, and that regulatory consistency required its exclusion, as had been done in related WLR/LCS applications.

Court Disposition

Exemption orders affirmed and varied; pair gain condition not imposed.

Orders

  • Tribunal's 2009 PSTN OA CBD Individual Exemption Order may be cited as such; effective from date made.
  • Commission's Order is affirmed with variation; expiry after five years or revocation of relevant declarations, whichever occurs first.