The resolution of access disputes under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The ensuing analysis is based on the present wording and current interpretation of s 46 [of the Trade Practices Act 1974] - drawing support, where relevant, from the anti-trust jurisprudence of the United States, European Union and New Zealand. The article finds that the Hilmer committee anticipated correctly the difficulty of establishing a contravention of s 46 and recognised that this would significantly constrain the usefulness of the provision as a means of facilitating access to essential facilities. In outline, the article proceeds as follows. The next part confirms the continuing relevance of s 46 to essential facilities cases and clarifies the nature of the provision's relationship with Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This discussion leads to the comprehensive analysis, of the guiding principles applicable in cases of refusal to supply/denial of access. The article concludes by summing up the current challenges confronting access seekers under s 46.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)9-51
Number of pages43
JournalUniversity of Tasmania Law Review
Volume22
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

act
jurisprudence
New Zealand
supply
interpretation
present

Cite this

@article{0c38cde4487241acacc7511dca98b786,
title = "The resolution of access disputes under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act",
abstract = "The ensuing analysis is based on the present wording and current interpretation of s 46 [of the Trade Practices Act 1974] - drawing support, where relevant, from the anti-trust jurisprudence of the United States, European Union and New Zealand. The article finds that the Hilmer committee anticipated correctly the difficulty of establishing a contravention of s 46 and recognised that this would significantly constrain the usefulness of the provision as a means of facilitating access to essential facilities. In outline, the article proceeds as follows. The next part confirms the continuing relevance of s 46 to essential facilities cases and clarifies the nature of the provision's relationship with Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This discussion leads to the comprehensive analysis, of the guiding principles applicable in cases of refusal to supply/denial of access. The article concludes by summing up the current challenges confronting access seekers under s 46.",
author = "Brenda Marshall",
year = "2003",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "9--51",
journal = "University of Tasmania Law Review",
issn = "0082-2108",
number = "1",

}

The resolution of access disputes under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. / Marshall, Brenda.

In: University of Tasmania Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2003, p. 9-51.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The resolution of access disputes under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act

AU - Marshall, Brenda

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - The ensuing analysis is based on the present wording and current interpretation of s 46 [of the Trade Practices Act 1974] - drawing support, where relevant, from the anti-trust jurisprudence of the United States, European Union and New Zealand. The article finds that the Hilmer committee anticipated correctly the difficulty of establishing a contravention of s 46 and recognised that this would significantly constrain the usefulness of the provision as a means of facilitating access to essential facilities. In outline, the article proceeds as follows. The next part confirms the continuing relevance of s 46 to essential facilities cases and clarifies the nature of the provision's relationship with Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This discussion leads to the comprehensive analysis, of the guiding principles applicable in cases of refusal to supply/denial of access. The article concludes by summing up the current challenges confronting access seekers under s 46.

AB - The ensuing analysis is based on the present wording and current interpretation of s 46 [of the Trade Practices Act 1974] - drawing support, where relevant, from the anti-trust jurisprudence of the United States, European Union and New Zealand. The article finds that the Hilmer committee anticipated correctly the difficulty of establishing a contravention of s 46 and recognised that this would significantly constrain the usefulness of the provision as a means of facilitating access to essential facilities. In outline, the article proceeds as follows. The next part confirms the continuing relevance of s 46 to essential facilities cases and clarifies the nature of the provision's relationship with Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This discussion leads to the comprehensive analysis, of the guiding principles applicable in cases of refusal to supply/denial of access. The article concludes by summing up the current challenges confronting access seekers under s 46.

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 9

EP - 51

JO - University of Tasmania Law Review

JF - University of Tasmania Law Review

SN - 0082-2108

IS - 1

ER -