We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 12

Competition review: January 20141

  • Corrs Chambers Westgarth
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • January 24 2014

RECENT ENFORCEMENT DEVELOPMENTS Mitsubishi Electric to pay $2.2 million for resale price maintenance On 20 December 2013, the Federal Court ordered by

Dominant message creating a higher standard for misleading advertising

  • Holding Redlich
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • December 18 2013

Companies advertising and marketing their business were given a reminder by the High Court of Australia recently that they will be held to account

Full court reduces penalty against TPG from $2 million to $50,000

  • Corrs Chambers Westgarth
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 9 2013

Jacobson, Bennett and Gilmour JJ of the Federal Court handed down their judgment on relief in relation to TPG Internet Pty Ltd’s (TPG) appeal against

Google Inc v ACCC: More detailed analysis

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 6 2013

Further to our breaking news post this morning (we promised there was more to follow!), our Anthony McKew and John Swinson have prepared an alert on

Flight price advertising is it a single price?

  • Cordato Partners
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • January 28 2013

Call it a single price, a total price or a final price, the Australian Consumer Law requires businesses to show an all-inclusive price in their

Those drugs cost how much?? Chemist warehouse price list misleading but not for the reasons you might think

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • October 29 2012

Last Monday the Supreme Court of Queensland held that a price list published by various Chemist Warehouse pharmacies in Cairns, Nerang, Coolangatta and other parts of Queensland was likely to mislead or deceive and therefore contravene clause 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), schedule 2, section 18

ACCC challenges ticketing market power

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • July 18 2012

In a consent judgment handed down in December 2011 (ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd 2011 FCA 1489) the Federal Court accepted the terms of an agreement between the ACCC and Ticketek Pty Ltd (Ticketek) which resulted in a total of $2.5 million in penalties

Competition Appeal Board of Singapore decision on SISTIC exclusive agreements

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Singapore
  • -
  • July 18 2012

In the first abuse of dominance case under Singapore’s Competition Act, the Competition Appeal Board (Appeal Board) upheld an abuse of dominance decision by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) against SISTIC, Singapore’s largest ticketing services provider

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ticketek Pty Ltd 2011 FCA 1489

  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 27 2012

On 22 December 2011, the Federal Court by consent made orders and declarations and imposed penalties in the total amount of $2.5 million on Ticketek Pty Limited for contraventions of section 46(1)(c) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Yet another case of misleading and deceptive advertising this time La Ionica

  • Hall & Wilcox
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 8 2012

On 23 January 2012, the Federal Court delivered yet another judgment against a business involved in misleading and deceptive advertising