Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2) - [2006] ACompT 10

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2006] ACompT 10
TRADE PRACTICES – application pursuant to s 152CE(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – application for review of decision of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“Commission”) to reject access undertakings – unconditioned local loop service – interlocutory application by Commonwealth – public interest immunity claim
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – telecommunications access regime – application by Commonwealth – public interest immunity claim – whether documents are Cabinet documents – proper administration of review process – proper administration of justice
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): ss 152AB, 152CE, 152CF(3), 152CF(4), 152CGA, 152CGA(1)
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, considered
Commonwealth of Australia v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604, applied
Commonwealth v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2000) 98 FCR 31, applied
National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Commonwealth (2001) 111 FCR 583, applied
FILE No 8 of 2006
RE:FINAL DECISION BY THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 2006 IN RESPECT OF ORDINARY ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS SUBMITTED BY TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED FOR THE UNCONDITIONED LOCAL LOOP SERVICE

BY: TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)
Applicant
GOLDBERG J
4 DECEMBER 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

FILE No 8 of 2006
RE:FINAL DECISION BY THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 2006 IN RESPECT OF ORDINARY ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS SUBMITTED BY TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED FOR THE UNCONDITIONED LOCAL LOOP SERVICE

BY: TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)
APPLICANT

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:
1.The application by the Commonwealth of Australia by notice dated 21 November 2006 is refused.

2.Documents A.37, A.38 and A.39 in Annexure A to the Final Index of Documents filed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on 6 November 2006 remain confidential and their contents only be disclosed to solicitors and counsel for the parties and intervenors in this review and one nominated officer or employee of each such party or intervenor upon that person having signed an undertaking to be filed with the Tribunal that that person will keep the contents of such documents confidential and will only use the contents of such documents for the purpose of this review.

3.There be a stay on the disclosure of documents A.37, A.38 and A.39 pursuant to this direction until 2.15pm on Tuesday 5 December 2006 or further order.

IN THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

FILE No 8 of 2006
RE:FINAL DECISION BY THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 2006 IN RESPECT OF ORDINARY ACCESS UNDERTAKINGS SUBMITTED BY TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED FOR THE UNCONDITIONED LOCAL LOOP SERVICE

BY: TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)
APPLICANT

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

4 DECEMBER 2006

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

RULING

The Commonwealth of Australia (“the Commonwealth”), by notice dated 21 November 2006, seeks the following orders:
“The documents referred to in paragraphs 7a. – 7d. of Telstra’s Notice of Application dated 10 November 2006 shall not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] ACompT 10
Decision Date: 4 DECEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Australian Competition Tribunal was an application by Telstra Corporation Ltd for judicial review of a decision by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to reject certain access undertakings. The Commonwealth of Australia sought to prevent the disclosure of certain documents on the basis of public interest immunity. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the documents should be disclosed to the parties and intervenors in the review process. The Tribunal considered the relevance of the documents to the issues before it and the competing public interests in the proper administration of justice and the protection of Cabinet processes. The Tribunal found that the documents were highly relevant to the issues before it and that the public interest in the proper administration of justice and the review process outweighed the claim of public interest immunity. The Tribunal ordered that the contents of the documents remain confidential and only be disclosed to solicitors and counsel for the parties and intervenors, and one nominated officer or employee of each party and intervenor, upon that person having signed an undertaking to keep the contents confidential and only use them for the purpose of the review.

Orders