Air New Zealand Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionPT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionCitation:[2017] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:14 Jun 2017Case Number:S245/2016, S248/2016Read more

Air New Zealand Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionPT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionCitation:[2017] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:14 Jun 2017Case Number:S245/2016, S248/2016Read more

The court held that the market for air cargo services was 'in Australia' as the services were supplied to persons in Australia, the airlines' conduct was not compelled by foreign law or regulator, and there was no operative inconsistency between the Air Navigation Act and the Trade Practices Act.

Parties
Applicant: Unknown (Airlines); Respondent: Unknown (Competition Authority)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Price Fixing, Market Identification, Foreign State Compulsion, Statutory Inconsistency
Competition Law Statutory Interpretation Price Fixing Market Identification Foreign State Compulsion Statutory Inconsistency

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Airlines)

Applicant

Unknown (Competition Authority)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the market for air cargo services was 'in Australia' for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the airlines' conduct was compelled by foreign law or regulator
  3. 3 Whether the Air Navigation Act 1920 (Cth) was inconsistent with the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) such that the latter did not apply

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the market for air cargo services was 'in Australia' as the services were supplied to persons in Australia, the airlines' conduct was not compelled by foreign law or regulator, and there was no operative inconsistency between the Air Navigation Act and the Trade Practices Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs.