Kadkhudayan v W D & H O Wills (Aust) Ltd [2002] FCAFC 110

Kadkhudayan v W D & H O Wills (Aust) Ltd [2002] FCAFC 110

The appellants failed to establish that the respondent's refusal of promotional payments or supply amounted to contravention of ss 48, 96(3)(b), or 46(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act, as there was no causative loss and no unlawful conduct proven. The primary judge's findings that any contravention was not causative...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['resale Price Maintenance' 'misuse of Market Power' 'costs' 'practice and Procedure']
['trade Practices' 'competition Law'] ['resale Price Maintenance' 'misuse of Market Power' 'costs' 'practice and Procedure']

Source-derived case record

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent manufacturer's refusal to offer promotional payments to a retailer selling goods below a stipulated price amounted to resale price maintenance under ss 48 and 96(3)(b) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)" 'Whether respondent contravened s 46(1)(c) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by misusing market power in refusing supply to appellant' 'Whether the primary judge erred in assessment of loss and causation' 'Whether the primary judge exercised discretion correctly regarding costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to establish that the respondent's refusal of promotional payments or supply amounted to contravention of ss 48, 96(3)(b), or 46(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act, as there was no causative loss and no unlawful conduct proven. The primary judge's findings that any contravention was not causative of loss, and that costs should follow the event, were upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The cross appeal be allowed.' "Order 2 made by the primary judge on 31 May 2001 be set aside, and in lieu thereof order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings at first instance." "The appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal subject to the...