Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd

Last updated

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Limited & Ors
Decided29 August 2007
Citations [2007] HCA 38, (2007) 232  CLR 1
Transcript [2007] HCATrans 202 (15 May 2007)
Case history
Prior actionsACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2005] FCA 581; ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2006] FCAFC 128
Subsequent actionACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2008] FCAFC 141
Court membership
Judges sitting Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ
Case opinions
(5:1:1) The immunity of governments from the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 does not extend to trading corporations that provide goods or services to the government (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ; Callinan J dissenting and Kirby J deciding on different grounds)
(5:1:1) Derivative governmental immunity covers persons other than the government where applying the statute to those persons would have the effect of divesting the government of proprietary, contractual, or other legal rights or interests (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ; Callinan J dissenting and Kirby J deciding on different grounds)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, [1] (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA, Australian legislation governing anti-competitive behaviour) in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: [2] whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

Contents

The High Court's judgment marked a successful appeal for the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, the Australian regulator of anti-competitive conduct, having lost at first instance and on appeal in the Federal Court of Australia. The ACCC was again successful when the case was remitted to the Federal Court for reconsideration, ending eight years of litigation between the parties. The High Court's judgment was received as a significant precedent in the law of derivative governmental immunity in Australia.

Background

Facts

Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (Baxter), is the Australian subsidiary of Baxter International which is a publicly listed multinational manufacturer and distributor of medical products. Baxter International is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [3]

Baxter Healthcare manufactures intravenous (IV) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids at a manufacturing facility in Western Sydney. [4] Because of the cost of importing sterile IV fluids and the absence of a rival domestic producer, Baxter was a monopoly supplier of large volume parenteral solutions in the Australian market but faced competition in the market for peritoneal dialysis fluids (PD fluids) at the time when the contracts that drew the attention of the ACCC were negotiated [5]

A number of state governments issued requests for tender for the supply of sterile fluids and PD fluids. [6] Baxter responded to the requests with tenders that put forward two alternative pricing options: either a state could purchase sterile fluids and PD fluids as a bundled package at a discounted rate, or the state could buy each product separately but at a higher rate. [7]

Legislation

Section 46 of the TPA prohibited corporations from misusing market power. [8] Section 47 prohibited exclusive dealing. [9] The critical provision to the case was Section 2B of the TPA. Section 2B provided that Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA:

... bind the Crown in right of each of the States, of the Northern Territory and of the Australian Capital Territory, so far as the Crown carries on a business, either directly or by an authority of the State or Territory ... [10]

Section 2B thus provided an immunity from state and territory governments from Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA insofar as the governments were not carrying on a business.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian government authority responsible for regulating the TPA, commenced an action in the Federal Court of Australia seeking declarations that Baxter's bundling pricing structure in its tenders had contravened Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA. The ACCC sought the imposition of injunctions and pecuniary penalties by the court. [11]

Derivative governmental immunity before Baxter

Derivative governmental immunity refers to the extension of a government's immunity from a statute to a non-government party on the basis the government would be affected if the statute was to apply to the other party. [12]

Prior to Baxter, the leading case on derivative governmental immunity in Australia was the 1979 High Court judgment in Bradken Consolidated Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd. [13] [14] [15] In Bradken, the High Court upheld a claim for derivative governmental immunity by equipment suppliers to the Queensland Commissioner for Railways. The majority's conclusion was that if the Queensland government was immune from the TPA, it would prejudice the Queensland government if the contracts and arrangements it entered were subject to the TPA through the other parties to the contracts and arrangements. [16]

Bradken's application of the principle of derivative governmental immunity had been subject to criticism. Robertson Wright SC, a Senior Counsel specialising in competition and trade practices law, [17] argued there are "a number of difficulties" with the judgment, including the "unsatisfactory nature" of the authorities it relied on. [18] The High Court's judgment in Baxter would mark a retreat from Bradken. [19]

Federal Court litigation

The ACCC conceded that the state governments were not carrying on businesses in procuring the medical products. This meant that the governments were immune from Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA. Baxter argued that this immunity extended to itself, by claiming derivative governmental immunity. [20] On 16 May 2005, The Federal Court of Australia (Allsop J presiding) found in Baxter's favour at first instance. [21] While the court held that Baxter would have breached the TPA, governmental immunity under Section 2B extended to Baxter Healthcare. [7] Allsop J's judgment was upheld unanimously on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court (Justices Mansfield, Dowsett and Gyles presiding). [22] The full bench expressed unease about its own judgment, stating that the question of derivative governmental immunity should be left to the High Court for reconsideration of Bradken. [23]

High Court appeal

The ACCC was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the full bench of the Federal Court. [24] The appeal was heard on 16 May 2007. The Australian Government Solicitor acted for the ACCC, with Lindsay Foster as Senior Counsel; Blake Dawson and David Yates SC represented Baxter. In addition to Baxter, the states of Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales were respondents to the appeal. [25] The High Court decided on 29 August 2007, by a 6–1 majority, to allow the ACCC's appeal and remit the matter back to the full bench of Federal Court for reconsideration. The majority held that Baxter was not covered by derivative governmental immunity in its dealings with the state governments. [1]

Judgments

Joint judgment

Five judges (Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan) joined in the leading majority judgment allowing the ACCC's appeal. The joint judgment reasoned that Parliament could not have intended for corporations that do business with the government to be exempt from the restrictive trade practices provisions in Part IV of the TPA in respect of that business. Emphasising the overall purpose of the TPA, the judges reasoned that the purpose would not be fulfilled if Baxter could claim derivative immunity. [26] In response to the concern that one party to a transaction (the government) would be immune from the TPA while the other party would be bound by it, the joint judgment reasoned there was "nothing unusual" about such an outcome. [27]

The joint judgment did not rule out derivative governmental immunity in all cases. In determining the scope of whether governmental immunity from a statutory provision extends to a party dealing with the government, the judgment adopted the following position of Justice Kitto, then dissenting, in the 1955 High Court case of Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways (NSW): [28] [29]

The object in view is to ascertain whether the Crown has such an interest in that which would be interfered with if the provision in question were held to bind the corporation that the interference would be, for a legal reason, an interference with some right, interest, power, authority, privilege, immunity or purpose belonging or appertaining to the Crown. [30]

Wynyard Investments was a case about governmental immunity generally (not derivative governmental immunity specifically), but Justice Kitto's dissenting judgment extended to derivative governmental immunity. [31]

Having examined the characteristics of the TPA as a law to promote competitive behaviour, the joint judgment held that the extension of derivative governmental immunity from the TPA to a trading corporation would be a "remarkable" conclusion and "far beyond what is necessary to protect the legal rights of governments, or to prevent a divesting of proprietary, contractual or other legal rights and interests." [32]

Kirby J

Justice Kirby's judgment agreed with the outcome of the joint judgment, for different reasons. Kirby criticised the concept of governmental immunity itself, stating that "persisting with [governmental immunity] into the twenty-first century is unacceptable." [33] [34]

Callinan J

Justice Callinan dissented from the majority, holding that derivative governmental immunity extended to Baxter. Callinan followed Bradken, concluding that it remained authoritative. [33]

Reaction to judgment

Significance

Robertson Wright, writing after the judgment was handed down, claimed that Baxter represented a change to the law, drawing the following conclusions from the judgment:

The judgment was reported in the press as a significant legal victory for the ACCC. [36] The judgment was also received as an "historic decision" setting a precedent for government procurement, on the basis that businesses might no longer be able to rely on immunity from the TPA when contracting with governments. [37]

Criticism

Nicholas Seddon, a lawyer and academic specialising in commercial and government law, [38] [39] claimed the High Court's judgment leaves "many uncertainties", particularly regarding whether derivative governmental immunity will extend to private sector providers carrying out governmental functions that have been contracted to them (as opposed to merely providing goods or services to the government). [40] Robertson Wright echoed these concerns, arguing the joint judgment did not "set out in as helpful detail" as it might the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether governmental immunity will derive to a party dealing with the government. [41] Seddon also criticised the outcome of the case itself, arguing it is "difficult to see how derivative immunity does not inevitably flow" from the governmental immunity from the TPA. He suggested that the application of the TPA to a party that deals with a government compromises the intention of Parliament that State and Territory governments should be immune from the TPA. [42]

Later action

The ACCC was successful, by a 2–1 majority, upon the remittal of the case to the full bench of the Federal Court. The full bench found that Baxter contravened Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA. [43] That judgment ended the eight-year-long litigation between Baxter and the ACCC. It was the first time in over 10 years that a corporation had unsuccessfully defended a prosecution brought by the ACCC for an alleged contravention of Section 46. [44] The full bench declared that Baxter breached Sections 46 and 47 of the TPA, but left it to the ACCC to seek pecuniary penalties. [45] Baxter was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court against the full bench's judgment. [46]

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Owen Dixon</span> Australian judge and diplomat (1886–1972)

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. Many consider him to be Australia's most prominent jurist.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<i>Competition and Consumer Act 2010</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. Prior to 1 January 2011, it was known as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The Act is the legislative vehicle for competition law in Australia, and seeks to promote competition, fair trading as well as providing protection for consumers. It is administered by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and also gives some rights for private action. Schedule 2 of the CCA sets out the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Federal Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to determine private and public complaints made in regard to contraventions of the Act.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd. v Commonwealth</i>

Telstra Corporation Limited v The Commonwealth was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 March 2008.

<i>Bropho v Western Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Bropho v Western Australia was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 20 June 1990 that Section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 of Western Australia bound the Crown in right of Western Australia.

<i>Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Yorta Yorta v Victoria was a native title claim by the Yorta Yorta, an Aboriginal Australian people of north central Victoria. The claim was dismissed by Justice Olney of the Federal Court of Australia in 1998. Appeals to the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia in 2001 and the High Court of Australia in 2002 were also dismissed.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>Akiba v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights, their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<i>ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd</i>

ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd is a 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Cabcharge. In June 2009, the ACCC began proceedings in the Federal Court against Cabcharge alleging that it had breached section 46 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act (TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged predatory pricing by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in refusing to deal with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through EFTPOS terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taxi meters and fare updates at below actual cost or at no cost.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

References

  1. 1 2 ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 , (2007) 232  CLR 1(29 August 2007), High Court (Australia).
  2. ↑ There are differing opinions whether the immunity in Australia should be referred to as "Crown immunity" or "governmental immunity". For example, Wright 2008 refers to governmental immunity; while Seddon 2009 refers to Crown immunity. Without judging the merits of which term is more appropriate, this article uses "governmental immunity"
  3. ↑ Baxter International
  4. ↑ https://healthdispatch.com.au/news/hbf-to-adjust-branch-network-as-digital-interactions-with-member [ bare URL ]
  5. ↑ Duns 2008, p. 51.
  6. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 at [10].
  7. 1 2 Corones 2007, p. 374.
  8. ↑ Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) "s.46 Misuse of market power"..
  9. ↑ Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) "s.47 Exclusive dealing"..
  10. ↑ Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) "s.2B Application of Act to States and Territories". which provides that the Crown is bound by Part IV of the TPA, which includes Sections 46 and 47.
  11. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2005] FCA 581 at [1], Federal Court (Australia).
  12. ↑ Wright 2008, p. 116.
  13. ↑ Bradken Consolidated Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1979] HCA 15 , (1979) 145 CLR 107, High Court (Australia).
  14. ↑ Wright 2008, pp. 116–120.
  15. ↑ Heydon 1989, p. [2.115].
  16. ↑ Wright 2008, pp. 116–117.
  17. ↑ "Robertson Wright SC". Wentworth Selborne Chambers (12th floor). Archived from the original on 12 November 2009. Retrieved 13 January 2010.
  18. ↑ Wright 2008 , p. 117. Wright details his criticisms in Wright, Robertson (2007), "The future of Derivative Crown Immunity—with a competition law perspective", Competition and Consumer Law Journal, 14, Sydney: Lexis Nexis Australia: 240, ISSN   1039-5598
  19. ↑ Corones 2007, p. 375.
  20. ↑ Seddon 2009, p. 168.
  21. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2005] FCA 581.
  22. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2006] FCAFC 128 at [1], Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  23. ↑ Wright 2008, p. 122.
  24. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCATrans 60 (9 February 2007), High Court (Australia).
  25. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCATrans 202 (15 May 2007), High Court (Australia).
  26. ↑ Seddon 2009, p. 169.
  27. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 at [44].
  28. ↑ Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways [1955] HCA 72 , (1955) 93  CLR 376(15 December 1955), High Court (Australia).
  29. ↑ Corones 2007, p. 376.
  30. ↑ Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways [1955] HCA 72 at [9] per Kitto J.
  31. ↑ Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways [1955] HCA 72 at [5] per Kitto J.
  32. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 at [64].
  33. 1 2 Duns 2008, pp. 53–4.
  34. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2007] HCA 38 at [97].
  35. ↑ Wright 2008, p. 126.
  36. ↑ Maiden, Malcolm (29 August 2007). "Back to the trade law books as Samuel scores". Brisbane Times . Fairfax Media . Retrieved 13 January 2010.
  37. ↑ Murphy, Mathew (30 August 2007). "Businesses could lose immunity after ruling". The Age . Fairfax Media . Retrieved 13 January 2010.
  38. ↑ "Nicholas Seddon: Special Counsel, Canberra". Blake Dawson . Retrieved 13 January 2010. At the time of writing his criticisms, Seddon was an employee of Blake Dawson, the firm that represented Baxter throughout the Federal Court and High Court litigation.
  39. ↑ "ANU College of Law: Our Staff". Australian National University. Archived from the original on 10 July 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2010.
  40. ↑ Seddon 2009, p. 171.
  41. ↑ Wright 2008, pp. 126–127.
  42. ↑ Seddon 2009, p. 170.
  43. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2008] FCAFC 141 (11 August 2008), Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  44. ↑ Watts, Kate; Gordon, Tova (MinterEllison) (September 2008). "Baxter litigation finally concludes". Lawyers Weekly. LexisNexis. Archived from the original on 25 October 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  45. ↑ ACCC v Baxter Healthcare [2008] FCAFC 141 at [257], Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  46. ↑ Baxter Healthcare v ACCC [2009] HCATrans 20 (13 February 2009), High Court (Australia).

Cited texts

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.