Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 AUGUST 2017

Agent v Principal? Agency in Australian competition law

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Explore more from Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

The High Court found the agent (Flight Centre) was in competition with airlines to supply international airline tickets.

AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Andrew Riordan
Andrew Riordan
Author LinkedIn connections

A recent decision by the High Court of Australia found that an agent may be in competition with its principal where certain features arise, such as the agent having the freedom to set its own prices or prioritize its own interests over those of its principal. In the case of ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd (2016) 339 ALR 242, the High Court found that Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd (Flight Centre) was in competition with airlines in the market to supply international airline tickets.

As a consequence, companies that operate through agency relationships in Australia should consider whether they may be seen to be in competition with their agent or principal, and whether, as a result, any of their current agency agreements or understandings could be seen to be anti-competitive.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Merger Reform Update: Critical Amendments To Australia’s Merger Regime Passed By Parliament

Australia's Parliament has passed critical amendments to the country's new merger regime, replacing automatic voiding of non-notified acquisitions with a court-supervised model and clarifying control exemptions for minority investments. The changes also introduce greater flexibility for stale clearances, though questions remain about whether further reforms are needed to address the regime's underlying complexity and conservative thresholds.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Article

Australia Moves To Ban Unfair Non-competes, No-poach Agreements, And Wage-fixing Arrangements

The Australian government is consulting on legislation that would treat certain employment-related restrictive covenants and inter-business labor market agreements as cartel conduct, while banning other clauses outright. The proposed bill extends Australia's cartel framework to no-poach and wage-fixing provisions between any employers, and prohibits non-compete clauses for most employees, with severe penalties for non-compliance including fines and potential jail time for individuals.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Article

Australia’s Merger Regime Changes Again: Parliament Fine-tunes New M&A Rules

Australia's Parliament has passed significant amendments to the country's merger regime, less than a year after its introduction. The changes address practical concerns around mandatory merger notifications, providing greater flexibility for minority investments, reducing risks from inadvertent notification failures, and allowing extensions for delayed transactions. How will these refinements impact dealmakers navigating Australia's interventionist competition framework?
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Article

Key Refinements To Streamline Australia's Merger Control Regime Passed Into Law: Threshold For Control Increased, Removal Of Voiding Provisions And Changes To "Stale" Notification Timelines

Australia's mandatory merger control regime undergoes significant refinement through new legislation that addresses practical challenges businesses have faced since its 2026 introduction. The amendments fundamentally reshape how control and associate relationships are assessed, what happens when acquisitions aren't properly notified, and how parties can manage completion timelines for approved mergers.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

Attempt Is Enough: Record Personal Penalty Signals ACCC’s Zero Tolerance For Cartel Conduct

The Federal Court has imposed a record $1 million personal fine on an executive for attempting to induce competitors into cartel arrangements in the oil and gas services industry, despite all five attempts failing. The Court also issued a non-indemnification order preventing the executive from using insurance or company funds to pay the penalty, marking a significant escalation in competition law enforcement.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

Competition And Consumer Law Round-Up

This edition of the K&L Gates Competition and Consumer Law Round-Up examines recent enforcement actions by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, including greenwashing allegations, misleading pricing investigations, and record penalties for horticulture code breaches. The newsletter also covers significant merger reviews, authorisations for industry collaborations, and emerging regulatory developments affecting digital platforms and supply chain disruptions.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates