QCMA Case Summary

1485 Words3 Pages
QCMA and Defiance are the applicant companies which made merger proposals to take over another company called the Barnes. All of these were flour milling firms in Queensland. The applicant company sought authorization or clearance for the proposals. This proposal was denied by the Trade Practices Commission. The applicant company then sought a review by the Tribunal of the Commission for the denial of authorization. At the preliminary conference, the President of the Tribunal refused to issue a general order directing the Commission to produce all documents in its possession relevant to the proceedings. The tribunal President ruled that there is nothing in the relevant legislation for review. Section 101 or 102 of the relevant legislation…show more content…
It was also referred to in important cases such as In the Matter of Fortescue Metals Group Limited case where the court revisited the concept of substitution; economical concepts like cross price elasticity, geographic market etc; and competition law concepts such as hypothetical monopolistic test, significant market power. This said case borrowed heavily from the QCMA judgment. The market definition laid down in the QCMA case has been echoed in many other judgments such as Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd and in Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC. It was only after the QCMA judgment, Section 4E was inserted by the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977 to give statutory recognition to the concept of substitution. It provides that "for the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, 'market' means a market in Australia and, when used in relation to any goods or services, includes a market for those goods or services and other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the first-mentioned goods or
Open Document