BUS101: Business Law - AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION - Business Law Assignment Law

A copy of the High Court’s judgment is loaded separately.

1. The first step is for students to read the judgment carefully.
2. The questions for response will be placed on Moodle in week 8.

Extra guidance for students To avoid any confusion among some students who are reading the High Court judgment about the roles played by the various courts which heard this dispute I provide the following short summary The sequence of court hearings

1. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against internet provider TPG because of an advertising campaign TPG had been conducting for internet services.
2. Initially, the proceedings were heard by a single judge, who is referred to in the High Court judgment as the “primary judge". ACCC was largely successful against TPG in those proceedings.
3. TPG, having lost the case before the primary judge, appealed to three judges, referred to in the judgment as the “Full Court". That court largely disagreed with the conclusions of the primary judge and set aside his decision. In effect, TPG won its appeal to the Full Court.
4. This left ACCC as the loser. It appealed to the High Court, which disagreed with the conclusions of the Full Court in favour of TPG and essentially reinstated the decision made by the primary charge in favour of ACCC.

The judgment you are reading, and to which the assignment questions relate, is the judgment of the High Court only. However, to enable the "ratio" of its decision to be understood, the High Court includes in its judgment summaries of the reasons which the primary judge and the Full Court gave in coming to their respective (and contradictory) decisions.