Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd

Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (CUB) and Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd (CTL) were the parties in this matter before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the proper interpretation and application of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), which prohibits secondary boycotts. CUB sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain CTL from engaging in conduct that allegedly constituted a secondary boycott.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the conduct of CTL, in ceasing to supply beer to certain retailers who were also supplied by CUB, constituted a contravention of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if CTL's actions were done in concert with others, or for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to CUB, or to prevent CUB from supplying goods or services to those retailers.

The High Court considered the meaning of "concerted action" and the requisite "purpose" for a contravention of section 45D. The judges analysed the evidence to ascertain whether CTL's actions were taken independently or in combination with other parties, and whether the primary purpose of CTL's conduct was to harm CUB's business or to influence CUB's dealings with its customers. The court applied established principles of statutory interpretation and the law relating to secondary boycotts, focusing on the objective purpose of the conduct rather than the subjective intentions of the individuals involved.

The High Court ultimately dismissed CUB's application for an interlocutory injunction, finding that CUB had not established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the grant of such relief at that interlocutory stage.