P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2012] HCA 33

P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2012] HCA 33

The proceeding instituted by the ACCC against Garuda for alleged anti-competitive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) concerned a 'commercial transaction' as defined in s 11(3) of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). Accordingly, Garuda, as a 'separate entity' of a foreign State, was not immune from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd; Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court of Australia, Full Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Foreign State Immunity, Commercial Transactions, Jurisdiction, Anti Competitive Conduct, Pecuniary Penalties
Public International Law Competition Law Foreign State Immunity Commercial Transactions Jurisdiction Anti Competitive Conduct Pecuniary Penalties

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd

Appellant

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court of Australia, Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is immune from jurisdiction under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) as a separate entity of a foreign State
  2. 2 Whether the ACCC's proceeding for alleged contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) concerns a 'commercial transaction' under s 11(1) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding instituted by the ACCC against Garuda for alleged anti-competitive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) concerned a 'commercial transaction' as defined in s 11(3) of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). Accordingly, Garuda, as a 'separate entity' of a foreign State, was not immune from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.