On 14 June 2017, the High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court that Air New Zealand and PT Garuda engaged in price fixing in a market in Australia in contravention of section 45 of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) (now Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA)).
This guide provides corporate counsel and international practitioners with a comprehensive worldwide legal analysis of the laws and regulations of Data Protection. Melissa Fai and Alex Borowsky authored the Australia chapter of the 2017 edition.
In our update sent on 9 June, we summarised the key recommendations in Dr Alan Finkel’s Final Report on the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market. As we noted, the Final Report is a comprehensive document and contains 50 individual recommendations in support of a wide-ranging policy vision for the future of the NEM.
The global economy is being transformed by data. The proliferation of digital services and ‘intelligent’ products, and the improved capacity of businesses to collect, store and analyse data generated by those products, means that more is known about consumers than ever before.
Australian companies with overseas operations cannot afford to ignore the ever increasing reach of anti-bribery and corruption laws or to look the other way. Global trends suggest that Australian anti-bribery and corruption laws are likely to become more stringent and be enforced more rigorously. It is crucial that companies understand the risks inherent in their overseas operations and take steps to protect against prosecution.
We may look back on Monday, 10 April 2017, as the day shareholder activism “US style” finally arrived on our shores. On that day BHP Billiton, one of Australia’s most iconic resource companies, became a public target for US Hedge Fund Elliot Associates, one of the largest and most established hedge funds in the world, with over US$32bn in assets under management.
The High Court will deliver judgment in a case in which the result might mean that procedural defects in an application may invalidate the tenement the subject of that application. Specifically, where a mineralisation report has been submitted after (and not at) the time of the application, the Court might hold that the application is irrevocably flawed.