No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
1 [1965] V.R. 511.
2 (1964) 110 C.L.R. 194.
3 At the date of writing this comment, the former Act is still in force, but when section 4 (1.) of the Trade Practices Act 1965 comes into operation (on a day to be fixed by Proclamation) it will restrict the former Act to overseas trade and commerce by way of the carriage of goods by sea. Clause 5 of the Trade Practices Bill 1966 to amend the Trade Practices Act 1965 seeks to repeal the Australian Industries Preservation Act entirely but with no retrospective effect.
4 If it had been an action for treble damages under section 11 (1.) of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950, proceedings would have beenin the High Court.
5 He referred (inter alia) to Ware and de Freville Ltd v. Motor Trade Association [1921] 3 K.B. 40, and Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. Ltd v. Veitch [1942] A.C.435.
6 [1965] V.R. 511, 516.
7 Ibid. 517.
8 Ibid. 519.
9 Ibid. 518.
10 Ibid. 519, lines 15-37.
11 Ibid. 519, lines 37-58.
12 Ibid. 520.
13 Ibid. 518.
14 Ibid. 518.
15 (1964) 110 C.L.R. 194.
16 Kitto J., at pp. 210-211, Menzies J., at p. 222 and Owen J., at p. 233.
17 At 216. Windeyer J. at 229 was inclined to think that para. 16 was insufficient, but gave no reasons; his reasons might not have been the same as those given by Taylor J.. Dixon C.J., with whose judgment McTiernan J. agreed, did not deal with the particular combination alleged in para. 16.
18 18 7 (1.). The restrictions referred to in section 35 of this Act, and the practices referred to in section 36 and Part IX of this Act, include restrictions and practices that are (whether exclusively or not) applicable to, or engaged in in relation to, or that tend to prevent or hinder, transactions, acts or operations—
(a) in the course of trade or commerce with other countries or among the States.
19 Although Taylor J. dissented from the order of the Court, he agreed (at p. 215) that the general combination was in relation to interstate trade, butheld that the plaintiff's losses had not occurred ‘ by reason of’ that combination. Hisview was that the loss occurred by reason of the particular combination directed specifically against the plaintiffs and, as stated earlier in the text,he thought this combination was not one in relation to interstate trade (pp. 215-6).
20 [1965] V.R. 511, 521 : ‘… any effect of the restrictions upon the conduct of the business of the plaintiffs, the members of R.E.T.R.A. andthe manufacturers was of a very minor and temporary kind.’
21 Ibid. 515-6.
22 Ibid. 521 : Arguments of this kind have been decisively rejected by the United Kingdom Restrictive Practices Court after a full consideration of the economic and social factors invloved: e.g. In re Yarn Spinners (1959) L.R. 1 R.P. 118.
23 Smith J. himself said at 521 that‘ consumers would have the advantage of substantially lower prices ’.
24 This passage seems to imply that in trade competition no competitor can reasonably complain about the methods of his competitors: there are ‘ no holds barred ‘ .
25 Ibid. 522.
26 Ibid.
27 Stevens and Varney, The Restrictive Practices Court (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965), ch. 3.