Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No.2) [2003] FCAFC 163

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No.2) [2003] FCAFC 163

Declarations should relate only to s 46(1)(c) purposes, as the court did not find a s 46(1)(a) purpose. The Commission was substantially successful on appeal and should receive 80% of its costs.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Mark Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Orders After Appeal Reasons
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders of trial judge set aside on specific issues.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Market Power, Price Discrimination, Arrangements Restricting Competition, Trade Practices Act 1974
Competition Law Trade Practices Abuse of Market Power Price Discrimination Arrangements Restricting Competition Trade Practices Act 1974

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Appellant

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Mark Jones

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Orders After Appeal Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Safeway contravened s 46(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by ceasing to acquire, display and sell competitors' bread to deter competitive conduct
  2. 2 Whether Safeway made an arrangement with Tip Top lessening competition, contravening s 45(2)(a)(ii)
  3. 3 What declarations and costs orders are appropriate given partial success on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Declarations should relate only to s 46(1)(c) purposes, as the court did not find a s 46(1)(a) purpose. The Commission was substantially successful on appeal and should receive 80% of its costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders of trial judge set aside on specific issues.

Orders

  • Declarations made as set out in the judgment regarding contraventions of s 46(1)(c) and s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  • Orders of the trial judge dated 21 December 2001 and 22 October 2002 set aside