Trade Practices Commission v Garden City Cabs Co-Operative Ltd [1995] FCA 289

Trade Practices Commission v Garden City Cabs Co-Operative Ltd [1995] FCA 289

There is no serious question to be tried that Operational Rule 54 is an exclusionary provision or that it substantially lessens competition in the relevant market; the respondent is not a competitor in the market pleaded, the five day rule does not discriminate between taxi users or create identifiable classes of affected persons. The balance of convenience is against granting interlocutory relief.

Parties
Applicant: Trade Practices Commission; Respondent: Garden City Cabs Co-Operative Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Exclusionary Provision, Substantial Lessening of Competition, Interlocutory Injunction
Competition Law Exclusionary Provision Substantial Lessening of Competition Interlocutory Injunction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Applicant

Garden City Cabs Co-Operative Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Operational Rule 54 is an exclusionary provision under the Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Whether the five day rule substantially lessens competition in the market for taxi services in Toowoomba
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious question to be tried to grant interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

There is no serious question to be tried that Operational Rule 54 is an exclusionary provision or that it substantially lessens competition in the relevant market; the respondent is not a competitor in the market pleaded, the five day rule does not discriminate between taxi users or create identifiable classes of affected persons. The balance of convenience is against granting interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed if not agreed.