17 Melb. U. L. Rev. 582 (1989-1990)
The Role of Private Actions in Australian Restrictive Practices Enforcement

handle is hein.journals/mulr17 and id is 600 raw text is: THE ROLE OF PRIVATE ACTIONS IN AUSTRALIAN
RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES ENFORCEMENT
BY MAUREEN BRUNT*
1. INTRODUCTION
The first reported decision under Part IV - Restrictive Trade Practices of the
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ('the Act') was a private action, Top Perfor-
mance Motors v. Ira Berk (1975). The first reported High Court decision was a
private action, Quadramain v. Sevastapol (1976). The most important judgment
to date was yet another private action, Queensland Wire Industries v. B.H.P.
(1989). In this case the Australian High Court handed down a judgment on
'misuse of market power' (s. 46 of the Act), universally hailed as a landmark
decision. And over the last decade and a half, there has come a stream of
significant decisions on the interpretation of various sections in Part IV of the Act
arising from litigation initiated by private parties. To the three cases just cited we
can add:
Adamson v. West Perth Football Club, (1979);
Tillmans Butcheries v. A'sian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979);
Ron Hodgson v. Westco (1980);
Actors and Announcers Equity v. Fontana (1980, 1982);
Cool v. O'Brien, (1981, 1983);
Radio 2UE v. Stereo FM, (1982, 1983);
Outboard Marine v. Hecar (1982);
Dandy Power Equipment v. Mercury Marine (1982);
Williams & Hodgson v. Castlemaine Tooheys (1985, 1986);
Warman v. Envirotech (1986);
Hughes v. Western Australian Cricket Association (1986);
Mark Lyons v. Bursill Sportsgear (1987);
McCarthy v. Australian Rough Riders (1988);
Jewel Food Stores v. Amalgamated Milk Vendors Association (1989, 1990);
Paul Dainty v. National Tennis Centre Trust (1989, 1990);
Pont Data Australia v. ASX Operations (1990).
Even some of the decisions on the grant of interlocutory injunctions, by their
nature of limited authority, have generated an interest extending beyond resolu-
tion of the immediate dispute, for example:
Victorian Egg Marketing Board v. Parkwood Eggs (1978);
Williams v. Papersave (1987);
Midland Milk v. Victorian Dairy Industry Authority (1988).
* B.Com. (Melb.), Ph.D. (Harv.); Professorial Fellow, Law School and Graduate School of
Management, University of Melbourne. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
Inaugural Meeting of the Competition Law and Policy Institute of New Zealand held in Wellington
on 3 September 1989. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the contribution of Paul Kenny who did some
initial statistical work a few years ago (under an A.R.G.C. grant) and with whom I have discussed
many of the issues of this paper. I have benefited also from discussions with Judd Epstein, Allan Fels
and Tim Pinos, and from the helpful comments of Ron Bannerman, Frances Hanks and Philip
Williams on the first draft.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?