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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

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

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

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

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

False “Australian made” claims cost internet retailer of Chinese ugg boots

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 21 2011

An online retailer of iconic ugg boots has been penalised for $430,000 by the Federal Court after falsely and misleadingly claiming that the boots it sold were made in Australia

C7 decision: meaning of ‘purpose’

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 1 2010

On 2 December 2009, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Seven Network Limited v News Limited, the appeal from the widely publicised 'C7' decision in 2007

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy