Federal Court of Australia
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
Applications by Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd [2013] ACompT 2 Citation: Applications by Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd [2013] ACompT 2
Review from: Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia
Parties: Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd, North Mining Ltd, Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd, Rio Tinto Ltd, Mitsui Iron Ore Development Pty Ltd, Nippon Steel Australia Pty Ltd & Sumitomo Metal Australia Pty Ltd Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, Hamersley Iron-Yandi Pty Ltd, Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd, North Mining Ltd, Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd, Rio Tinto Ltd, Mitsui Iron Ore Development Pty Ltd, Nippon Steel Australia Pty Ltd & Sumitomo Metal Australia Pty Ltd
File numbers: ACT 3 of 2008 ACT 4 of 2008
Tribunal: MANSFIELD J (PRESIDENT)
MR R SHOGREN (MEMBER)
mR R STEINWALL (MEMBER)
Date of judgment: 8 February 2013
Catchwords: ACCESS TO SERVICES – review of Minister's decisions to declare two services under s 44H of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – where Minister had failed to consider proper test in applying criterion (b) in s 44H(4) – private profitability test – whether there was material which could satisfy the Tribunal about criterion (b) properly considered ACCESS TO SERVICES – review of Minister's decisions to declare two services under s 44H of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – review being conducted after significant passage of time – extent of power of presiding member under s 44K(6) – whether in circumstances presiding member could request National Competition Council to secure experts reports through parties to review and provide them to Tribunal on issue not previously properly addressed – factors relevant to discretion of presiding member to exercise that power ACCESS TO SERVICES – review of Minister's decisions to declare two services under s 44H of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether Tribunal has power to permit parties to adduce further evidence on review other than by presiding member exercising power under s 44K(6) – whether, if such power exists, it should be exercised in present circumstances where that would lead to a form of rehearing – discretionary factors considered
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