IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Section 46: The High Court, Dawson and The Senate: A Review of the Recent Debate

Listed author(s):

Two recent reviews of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (Cth) (1974) have looked specifically at the operation of Section 46 of this Act and come to very different conclusions concerning its efficacy. The Dawson review (2003) argued that no change to s46 was required as the courts were providing sufficient guidance in the application of the legislation in this respect. The Senate Committee review (2004) came to contrasting conclusions arguing that the Act needed clarification in regard to certain sections. These reports highlight the controversy which has surrounded this section of the Trade Practices Act for the past thirty years. The aim of this paper is to consider these reviews and evaluate the extent to which the High Court has been able to provide guidance in the application of legislation which prohibits the misuse of market power.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance in its series Economics Series with number 2004_18.

in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 26 Oct 2004
Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2004_18
Contact details of provider: Postal:
221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125

Phone: 61 3 9244 3815
Fax: +61 3 5227 2655
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2004_18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dr Xueli Tang)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.