Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

Case [1993] FCA 429

AUSTEREO LIMITED v. TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
No. VG192 of 1993
FED No. 429
Number of pages - 40
Broadcasting - Statutory Interpretation
(1993) 115 ALR 14
(1993) 41 FCR 1

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Gummow(1), French(2), Beazley(2) JJ
CATCHWORDS

Broadcasting - Broadcasting Services Act 1992 - commercial radio broadcasting licence - control and ownership provisions - whether statutory code - whether inconsistent with merger provisions of Trade Practices Act 1974 - whether exclude application of ss.45 and 50 of Trade Practices Act - policy and purpose of Broadcasting Services Act and Trade Practices Act - extrinsic materials - statutory implication.

Statutory Interpretation - inconsistency - between earlier and later statutes of same legislature - implication - tests for - citation of statute - implied reference to later amendments.

Words and Phrases - "notwithstanding"

Broadcasting Services Act 1992

Broadcasting Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1992

Trade Practices Act 1974 ss.45, 50

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s.46A

Broadcasting Services (Subscription Television Broadcasting) Amendment Act 1992

Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act 1992

R v. Brislan; Ex parte Williams (1935) 54 CLR 262

Butler v Attorney General (Victoria) (1961) 106 CLR 268

Jones v. The Commonwealth (No. 2) (1965) 112 CLR 206

Johnston v Egg Marketing Board of New South Wales (1965) 112 CLR 343

Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v. The Commonwealth (1966) 115 CLR 418

R v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte 2HD Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 45

Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour Ltd v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47

State of South Australia v Tanner (1989) 166 CLR 161

Associated Press v. United States (1945) 326 US 1

United States v. Radio Corporation of America (1959) 358 US 334

National Broadcasting Co. v. United States 319 US 190

Advanced Hair Studio Pty Ltd v. TVW Enterprises Limited (1987) 18 FCR 1

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v. Stereo FM Pty Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 70

Re Queensland Co-Operative Milling Association Ltd (1976) 25 FLR 169

Salomon v. Salomon (1897) AC 22

Thompson v. Goold (1910) AC 409

Willows v Lewis (Inspector of Taxes) (1981) 125 Sol Jo 792

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v. Shire of Hastings (1977) 16 ALR 363

Dallikavak v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 61 ALR 471

Chorlton v. Lings (1868) LR 4 CP 374

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129

Sloane v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 37 FCR 429

Austereo Limited v. Trade Practices Commission

HEARING

SYDNEY, 20 May 1993

#DATE 25:6:1993

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Neil Young QC with

Mr. Paul Anastassiou

Solicitors for the Appellant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Charles Sweeney QC

with Mr. Charles Scerri

Solicitors for the Repsondent: Australian Government

Solicitor
ORDER

The Court orders that:

I. The appeal be dismissed. II. the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

Note: Settlement and…

Continue reading Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Austereo Limited v. Trade Practices Commission [1993] FCA 429 ((1993) 115 ALR 14; (1993) 41 FCR 1)
Case
[1993] FCA 429
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Austereo Ltd, an applicant for a commercial radio broadcasting licence, appealed against the decision of the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) that certain provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) were inconsistent with the merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of provisions in both statutes, particularly whether the Broadcasting Services Act contained a statutory code that excluded the application of sections 45 and 50 of the Trade Practices Act. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Broadcasting Services Act contained a statutory code that excluded the application of sections 45 and 50 of the Trade Practices Act, and whether the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act were inconsistent with the merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The court had to determine if the extrinsic materials, including the policy and purpose of both statutes, could be considered in interpreting the legislation. The court also needed to decide whether statutory implications were necessary to resolve the inconsistency.

The court held that the Broadcasting Services Act did not contain a statutory code that excluded the application of sections 45 and 50 of the Trade Practices Act. The court found that the policy and purpose of both statutes indicated that they were intended to operate concurrently, and that extrinsic materials could be considered in interpreting the legislation. The court concluded that statutory implications were necessary to resolve the inconsistency between the two Acts. The court found that the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act were inconsistent with the merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act and dismissed the appeal. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

I. The appeal be dismissed. II. the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.