Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered a case stated by the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning the standing of Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd (the applicant) to bring proceedings against Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (the respondent). The dispute centred on allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, and the core question was whether the applicant, lacking a direct or special interest in the subject matter, possessed the necessary legal standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Commonwealth and New South Wales legislation.

The legal issues before the High Court were primarily constitutional, focusing on the validity of provisions in the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) and the *Fair Trading Act 1987* (NSW) that purported to confer standing on a person without a direct or special interest. Specifically, the Court was asked whether sections 80 and 163A of the *Trade Practices Act* were invalid insofar as they conferred standing on the applicant. Related questions concerned the applicant's standing under various provisions and potential conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws, as well as the implications for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

The High Court, in answering the first question of the Case Stated, held that sections 80 and 163A of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* were not invalid. The Court reasoned that Parliament had the power to modify the traditional common law principles regarding standing, which typically require a litigant to have suffered an infringement of a private right or special damage. Drawing on historical examples of statutes granting rights to "common informers" and systems of rewards for prosecution, the Court concluded that legislative intent to confer standing on persons without a direct interest was a valid exercise of legislative power. The Court found that the provisions in question did not offend constitutional requirements, and therefore, the applicant could potentially be conferred standing by such legislation. The remaining questions were deemed unnecessary to answer in light of this determination. The respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings in the Full Court.