Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (Remedies)

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
JudgePERRAM J
Judgment Date30 May 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] FCA 786
Date30 May 2019
CourtFederal Court


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (Remedies) [2019] FCA 786


File number:

NSD 955 of 2009



Judge:

PERRAM J



Date of judgment:

30 May 2019



Catchwords:

COMPETITION – collusive arrangement – exclusive dealing – respondent found to have contravened s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – enforcement and remedies – application for declarations, injunctions and pecuniary penalties – consideration of relevant principles


PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW – act of state doctrine – distinction between foreign state immunity and act of state doctrine – whether commercial acts of respondent airline had sovereign aspect to them


PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW – where respondent submitted injunctions and pecuniary penalties would be contrary to customary international law – where respondent argued customary international law relevant to Court’s discretion and power to grant remedies – where respondent argued relevance of principles of ‘accommodation, mutuality and proportionality’


STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – factors relevant to imposition of pecuniary penalty – loss or damage flowing from contravention of competition law – consideration of deeming provision in s 45A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether s 45A can inform assessment of loss or damage under s 76 or limited to establishing breach of s 45 – consideration of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Comber [1986] FCA 92; 10 FCR 88 and Re Levy; Ex parte Walton (1881) 17 Ch D 746



Legislation:

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 8

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 76, 80

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 4E, 5, 45, 45A, 45DA



Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia (7 February 2013) 2016 ATS 25 (entered into force 30 December 2016)



Cases cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand [2014] FCA 1157

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand (No 15) [2018] FCA 1166

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v British Airways PLC [2008] FCA 1977

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cargolux Airlines International SA [2009] FCA 342

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd [2012] FCA 1392

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330; 327 ALR 540

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1730; ATPR 42-140

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2007] FCAFC 146; 161 FCR 513

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emirates [2012] FCA 1108

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Gullyside Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1727; (2006) ATPR 42-097

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum (No 2) [2005] FCA 254; 215 ALR 281

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 5) [1998] FCA 310; ATPR 41-628

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM) [2009] FCA 341

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd [2011] FCA 1360

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 683; ATPR 42-070

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Malaysia Airline System Berhad (No 2) [2012] FCA 767

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Martinair Holland NV [2009] FCA 340

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1425; ATPR 42-031

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 693; 207 ALR 329

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Limited [2008] FCA 1976; 253 ALR 89

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd [2012] FCA 1395

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Société Air France [2009] FCA 341

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2010] FCA 790; 188 FCR 238

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Thai Airways [2012] FCA 1434

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73; 357 ALR 55

Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner v Japan Airlines International Co Ltd [2011] FCA 365

BMW Australia Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 167; 207 ALR 452

Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39; 194 IR 461

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Comber [1986] FCA 92; 10 FCR 88

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [2015] HCA 43; 258 CLR 31

Flight Centre Ltd v Australian Competition Commission (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 53; 356 ALR 389

Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1968) 122 CLR 49

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 649 F2d 1354 (9th Cir 1981)

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan [2008] FCAFC 70; 168 FCR 383

Muller v Dalgety & Co Ltd [1909] HCA 67; 9 CLR 693

NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134; 71 FCR 285

PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2011] FCAFC 52; 192 FCR 393

PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] HCA 33; 247 CLR 240

R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256

Re Levy; Ex parte Walton (1881) 17 Ch D 746

Re Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd (1976) 8 ALR 481

Rural Press v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 75; 216 CLR 53

Singtel Optus v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 20; 287 ALR 249

Spectrum Stores Inc v Citgo Petroleum 632 F3d 935 (5th Cir 2011)

Tax Practitioners Board v Su [2014] FCA 731

Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762; (1991) ATPR 41-076

Visy Paper Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 59; 216 CLR 1



Date of hearing:

22 and 25 June 2018



Date of last submissions:

16 May 2019 (Applicant)

23 May 2019 (Respondent)


...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
7 cases
  • Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 9 April 2021
    ...Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 42-031; [2004] FCA 1425 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (2019) 370 ALR 637; [2019] FCA 786 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Ltd (2008) 253 ALR 89; [2008] FCA 1976 Australian Competition and Consumer ......
  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v GetSwift Limited (Penalty Hearing)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 16 February 2023
    ...Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; (2022) 96 ALJR 426 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2019] FCA 786; (2019) 370 ALR 637 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181; (2016) 340 ALR 25 A......
  • Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre v Crown Melbourne Limited
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 11 July 2023
    ...v MSY Technology Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 382; (2011) 279 ALR 609 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2019] FCA 786; (2019) 370 ALR 637 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181; (2016) 340 ALR 25 ......
  • PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 21 May 2020
    ...and Consumer Commission [2020] FCA 685 Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (Remedies) [2019] FCA 786 File number: NSD 1011 of 2019 Judge: YATES J Date of judgment: 21 May 2020 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of appe......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • State Actors, Sovereignty And Securing Enforcement In Australia, Hong Kong And Singapore
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 October 2020
    ...immunity, it may be able to establish that its property should be immune from the execution of court judgments. Article 54ACCC v PT Garuda Indonesia [2019] FCA 786. It held that Garuda Indonesia Airlines, which was 95% owned by Indonesia and had members of the Indonesian Government as four ......