Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v
Dermalogica Pty Ltd (ACN 067 065 105)
[2005] FCA 152 TRADE PRACTICES – resale price maintenance – supply of beauty products – whether conduct involved the respondent 'making it known' that it would not supply products unless the second person agreed not to discount the product – admission of conduct falling within s 96(3)(b) and (f) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – consideration of appropriate penalty to impose in the circumstances – application for injunction pursuant to s 80 of the Act – whether injunction appropriate remedy in the circumstances. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): ss 48, 76(1), 80, 96(3)(a), (b) & (f)
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mayo (1998) 85 FCR 327, followed The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1986) 9 FCR 153, considered Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, referred to Trade Practices Commission v Simpson Pope Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 544, referred to Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2003) 127 FCR 170, followed Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41‑076, applied Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41‑515, applied Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (1994) ATPR 41‑363, applied Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 41-993, referred to McDonald v R (1994) 48 FCR 555, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v SIP Australia Pty Limited (2003) ATPR 41-937, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 145 ALR 36, referred to Trade Practices Commission v Stihl Chain Saws (Aust) Pty Ltd (1978) ATPR 40‑091, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-763, referred to NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission & Distribution Limited (2001) ATPR 41-815, considered Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v ABB Power Transmission Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 42-011, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v J McPhee & Son (Australia) Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41‑628, referred to Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2003) 131 FCR 529, referred to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd (2000) ATPR 41‑760, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v SIP Australia Pty Limited (1999) ATPR 41‑702, referred to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd (2004) 210 ALR 486, referred to ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1992) 38 FCR 248, considered Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Francis [2004] FCA 487, considered BMW Australia Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2004) 207 ALR 452, considered Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 174, referred to
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate