RP Data Limited (ACN 087 759 171) v State of Queensland

In the case of RP Data Limited (ACN 087 759 171) v State of Queensland, the applicant, RP Data, sought a declaration that the respondent, the State of Queensland, had engaged in conduct in contravention of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). Additionally, RP Data sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from such conduct, along with further or other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and costs. RP Data, which has been in the business of collating and selling real property data since 1992, sourced its data from the respondent through the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. RP Data's claim was that the respondent, by supplying data in response to individual searches, had contravened section 46 of the TPA.

The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether the respondent's conduct in supplying data in response to individual searches constituted carrying on a business, thereby making it subject to section 46 of the TPA. The court examined the nature of the respondent's activities and whether they could be classified as part of a business under the TPA. The court noted that while the respondent had engaged in some commercial activities, its primary role was to fulfil statutory obligations under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (Qld) and the Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld). The court concluded that the supply of data by the respondent in response to individual searches did not constitute carrying on a business, and therefore, section 46 of the TPA did not apply to this conduct.

The court's reasoning was based on the distinction between the respondent's statutory function of supplying data and its potential commercial activities. The court emphasised that the supply of data in response to individual searches was not part of a broader business of supplying valuation data. Consequently, the court held that section 46 of the TPA applied only to the respondent's conduct in supplying bulk data, not to its conduct in supplying data in response to individual searches. The court also considered whether there was a "market" as defined by section 4E of the TPA, concluding that the necessity for competition was a key factor in determining the existence of a market.

The final orders of the court were that the application filed by RP Data was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application.