Use of Market Power and Counterfactuals in New Zealand and Australian Competition Laws
Case Associates; Institute of Economic Affairs; Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis (CRMA)
affiliation not provided to SSRN
August 11, 2011
These two papers look at recent decisions and controversies surrounding the counterfactual test under s 36 of the New Zealand Commerce Act 1986, and s46 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 respectively. In 2010 the New Zealand Supreme Court in 0867 affirmed the counterfactual as the test to determine whether there has been a ‘use’ of market power (the equivalent of monopolisation under the Sherman Act, or abuse of dominance under Article 102TFEU) for a proscribed purpose. Veljanovski’s paper traces through the development of the s36 counterfactual, and concludes that it is flawed and potentially underinclusive. Featherston examines the development of and problems associated with the Australian equivalent s46 counterfactual and its relevance to New Zealand. Both papers were delivered at the 25th Competition Policy and Law Institute of New Zealand (CPLINZ) conference held in Wellington in August 2011.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 27
Keywords: counterfactual, market power, monopolisation, abuse of dominance, Baumol-Willig rule, predation, foreclosure, access, interconnection
JEL Classification: D4, K0, K21, L1, L4, L11, L12, L13, K14, L41, L44, N60working papers series
Date posted: August 11, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.657 seconds