Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning alleged contraventions of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) by Rural Press Limited and related entities. The dispute arose from an arrangement between regional newspaper publishers, where one publisher allegedly withdrew services from the prime circulation area of another. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged breaches of provisions relating to exclusionary provisions, substantial lessening of competition, misuse of market power, and accessorial liability for company officers.

The High Court was required to determine whether an arrangement existed between the publishers that had the purpose or effect of preventing, restricting, or limiting the supply or acquisition of services. Specifically, the court had to consider if the arrangement constituted an exclusionary provision under section 4D of the Act, or if it had the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition under section 45(2). Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether company officers were knowingly concerned in or party to the alleged contraventions, and whether a publisher had misused its market power in contravention of section 46.

The High Court reasoned that an arrangement had been made, involving the cessation of circulation of the *River News* in the Mannum area by Waikerie Printing House Pty Ltd, in return for Rural Press Limited ceasing to publish a regional newspaper in the Riverland area. The court found that this arrangement contained provisions under which Waikerie Printing agreed to cease soliciting advertising and news from the Mannum area and promoting the *River News* there, while Rural Press and its subsidiary agreed not to publish a regional newspaper in the Riverland. The court determined that these provisions contravened section 45(2) of the *Trade Practices Act* as they had the purpose of preventing, restricting, or limiting the supply of services to persons in the Mannum area and the acquisition of services from persons in the Riverland area. The court also found that certain officers of Rural Press were knowingly concerned in these contraventions.

The High Court dismissed Rural Press's appeal, upholding the finding of contravention of section 45(2) and accessorial liability. However, the High Court allowed the ACCC's appeal, setting aside the Full Federal Court's orders and substituting declarations that Rural Press and its subsidiaries contravened section 45(2) by making and giving effect to the arrangement. The court also declared that certain officers were knowingly concerned in these contraventions. The High Court did not find a contravention of section 46.