ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861

ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861

None of the pleaded or alleged contraventions by Safeway or Mr Jones of ss 45, 46, 47, or 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) were established. The Court found that Safeway's bread purchasing policy was not anti-competitive or punitive in purpose but was intended to ensure competitiveness. In the incidents considered, Safeway asked for matching case deals, and when refused, deleted product to maintain competitive position—this did not constitute making an anti-competitive arrangement, exclusive dealing, or attempting to induce resale price maintenance, nor taking advantage of substantial market power for a proscribed purpose. The Court also found insufficient evidence of contracts,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application against the first respondent (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited) and third respondent (Mark Jones) dismissed.
Legal Topics
['market Power' 'exclusive Dealing' 'resale Price Maintenance' 'price Fixing' 'authority of Employees' 'standard of Proof' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata']
['competition Law' 'corporations Law' 'evidence'] ['market Power' 'exclusive Dealing' 'resale Price Maintenance' 'price Fixing' 'authority of Employees' 'standard of Proof' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata']

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

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Safeway and employees contravene provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), including ss 45, 46, 47 and 48, in relation to market power, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, and price fixing?' "What was the purpose and implementation of Safeway's bread purchasing policy?" "Did Safeway's conduct constitute taking advantage of market power for a proscribed purpose?" 'Was there a contract, arrangement, or understanding with anti-competitive purpose in any of the incidents?' 'Did ACCC establish attempts by Safeway to induce resale price maintenance or exclusive dealing?']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the pleaded or alleged contraventions by Safeway or Mr Jones of ss 45, 46, 47, or 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) were established. The Court found that Safeway's bread purchasing policy was not anti-competitive or punitive in purpose but was intended to ensure competitiveness. In the incidents considered, Safeway asked for matching case deals, and when refused, deleted product to maintain competitive position—this did not constitute making an anti-competitive arrangement, exclusive dealing, or attempting to induce resale price maintenance, nor taking advantage of substantial market power for a proscribed purpose. The Court also found insufficient evidence of contracts,...

Court Disposition

Application against the first respondent (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited) and third respondent (Mark Jones) dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application against the first respondent and the third respondent be dismissed.' 'The issue of costs is reserved for further consideration and determination.' 'The time within which the applicant may file and serve a notice of appeal is extended to Monday 18 February 2002.']