Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority

Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd brought an action against the Bunbury Port Authority (BPA) in the Federal Court of Australia, challenging the BPA's decision to issue an exclusive licence for towage services in the Port of Bunbury. The applicants argued that the BPA was engaging in anti-competitive conduct by leveraging its market power and preventing other companies from entering the market. The BPA, on the other hand, argued that the tendering process was designed to encourage competition and that the exclusive licence was not intended to be anti-competitive.

The court had to decide whether the BPA's conduct was anti-competitive and whether the exclusive licence was being offered for any of the proscribed purposes under section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the BPA's actions were likely to substantially lessen competition in the market for towage services in the Port of Bunbury.

The court found that the BPA's conduct was not anti-competitive and that the exclusive licence was not being offered for any of the proscribed purposes under section 46. The court found that the tendering process was designed to encourage competition and that the exclusive licence was not intended to prevent other companies from entering the market. The court found that the BPA's actions were not likely to substantially lessen competition in the market for towage services in the Port of Bunbury.

The application was dismissed with costs. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The applicants were also granted liberty to apply for directions in relation to the basis for taxation of costs.