On 4 May 2011, the Federal Court of Australia denied Fortescue Metals Group access to two railway lines owned by mining giant Rio Tinto for the transport of iron ore. In applying the Trade Practices Act (‘TPA’), the court held that the test for private economic feasibility was not whether it was ‘economically efficient for society as a whole for another facility to be developed’, but whether it was ‘economically feasible for a participant in the market place to develop an alternative facility’. The court explained that the TPA was meant to strike a balance between the promotion of competition and economic efficiency, and the ‘legitimate interests’ of incumbent owners of facilities. Thus, if there is any player in the market place who may feasibly develop the alternative facility, it will be inconsequential that it is more economically efficient for society to have the incumbent’s facility declared accessible. In this case, the Court found that there was no essential facility involved and, therefore, protected the incumbent’s legitimate interests. In sum, the Court held that it would favour the development of an alternative facility.