Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1034
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v LIQUORLAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 007 512 414 AND WOOLWORTHS LTD ACN 000 014 675 NSD 769OF 2003
ALLSOP J
11 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 769 OF 2003
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: LIQUORLAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 007 512 414
First Respondent
WOOLWORTHS LTD ACN 000 014 675
Second Respondent
JUDGE: ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER: 11 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
ORDERS
THE COURT DECLARES
Jin Ro 1. That on or about 18 August 1997, the Second Respondent, in trade or commerce, by entering into a deed with Jin Ro Australia Pty Ltd and Deannah Jang ("the Jin Ro Parties") and the First Respondent ("the Jin Ro deed"), made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding containing the provision set out in Part 1 of the Schedule hereto ("the Jin Ro provision"), which had a substantial purpose of substantially lessening, preventing or hindering competition in the retail market for the sale of takeaway liquor in the Rockdale area by seeking to ensure that the Off-Licence (Retail) licence granted under the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW) ("Off-Licence") to the Jin Ro parties could not be used to facilitate any unrestricted market entry at that time or thereafter, and thereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2. That the Second Respondent, by not pressing its objection to the Jin Ro application referred to in Part 1 of the Schedule hereto, gave effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, namely the Jin Ro provision, which had a substantial purpose of substantially lessening, preventing or hindering competition in the retail market for the sale of takeaway liquor in the Rockdale area by seeking to ensure that the Off-Licence granted to the Jin Ro parties could not be used to facilitate any unrestricted market entry at that time or thereafter, and thereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
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