|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2019 |
|
|
Applicant's broad long‑term exclusivity contracts constituted exclusionary abuse of dominance without sufficient efficiency justification.
Competition — Abuse of dominance — Section 8(d)(i) — Long‑term, broad exclusivity in standard contracts — Exclusionary act; effects‑based inquiry — substantial/likely foreclosure sufficient; two‑sided platform dynamics; efficiency defence must show relationship‑specific, non‑contractible gains and less restrictive means.
|
19 October 2019 |
| July 2019 |
|
|
Identical bids by closely related firms do not equal collusive tendering absent an agreement or independent controllers.
Competition law – section 4(1)(b) – price-fixing and collusive tendering – characterisation required; section 4(5)(b) exemption – 'single economic entity similar in structure' to holding company/wholly-owned subsidiary – interpretive weight to Companies Act 2008 control-test; identical bids by commonly administered firms do not automatically establish collusion without an agreement or concerted practice
|
2 July 2019 |
|
The applicant failed to prove post‑Act implementation of a pre‑Act market‑allocation agreement; appeal dismissed.
Competition Act s 4(1)(b)(ii) – market allocation – requirement to establish existence and implementation/continuing conduct after commencement of the Act.* Characterisation – horizontal versus vertical relationship – objective assessment of economic substance.* "Agreement" in competition law – consensus suffices; implementation evidence often central to proof of continuing contravention.* Economic successor liability – requires pleaded and proven evidentiary basis for transfer of liability.* Pre‑Act regulation (GN 801) proscribing market sharing – raised but not decided as unnecessary to outcome.
|
2 July 2019 |
| May 2019 |
|
|
Whether the Tribunal properly balanced s12A(3) public‑interest employment concerns when approving a major mining merger.
Competition law – Mergers – Public interest under s12A(3) – Employment impact – Distinction between merger‑specific and operational retrenchments – Rationality and counterfactual inquiries – Conditions on merger approval – Locus standi to appeal Tribunal merger decisions (s17) – Admission of new evidence on appeal.
|
17 May 2019 |
| April 2019 |
|
|
Reported
Section 67(1) is a three‑year limitation from cessation of the prohibited practice and is not subject to condonation.
Competition Act s.67(1) – limitation/expiry period measured from cessation of prohibited practice – no knowledge requirement – no scope for Tribunal condonation; initiation/amendment of complaints – whether later initiation extends earlier initiation; pleaded discrete bilateral agreements may be treated as separate practices for limitation analysis.
|
3 April 2019 |