By -

Key decisions

  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Egg Corporation Ltd [2017] FCAFC 152
  • Thomas v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 144
  • Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1090
  • Fair Work Ombudsman v Hu [2017] FCA 1081
  • FYD Investments Pty Ltd v Promptair Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1097


Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – challenges on appeal to inferences drawn and not drawn by the primary judge

In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Egg Corporation Ltd [2017] FCAFC 152 (23 September 2017) the Full Federal Court dismissed the ACCC’s appeal from the primary judge’s dismissal of the proceeding (see [2016] FCA 69).

The ACCC’s case was that the respondents attempted to induce egg producers to contravene s 44ZZRJ of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) by making an arrangement or arriving at an understanding which contained a cartel provision. The ACCC alleged that the respondents engaged in conduct which involved encouraging egg producers to act in a coordinated and consolidated fashion and, thereby, to enter into an arrangement or arrive at an understanding containing a provision to limit the production for supply of eggs in Australia.

There was no challenge to facts found by the trial judge and the appeal largely related to inferences which the trial judge drew or did not draw from those primary facts. The Full Court (Besanko, Foster and Yates JJ) discussed the key authorities on the scope of the Full Court’s review in an appeal in such a case (at [126]-[131]).

The Full Court rejected all of the ACCC’s arguments on the appeal.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more