A provision restricting the number of participants in a merged sporting competition may constitute an exclusionary provision under s 4D of the Trade Practices Act where the excluded class can be identified by reference to prior participation in predecessor competitions, not merely by the fact of exclusion itself. However, the interrelationship between ss 45 and 47 may preclude a s 45 claim where the conduct could also constitute exclusive dealing. The word 'by' in s 4D(1)(b) connotes 'through the agency or efficacy of', so that services supplied by an independent entity are not supplied 'by' its shareholders merely because they constituted and own it. On the balance of convenience for mandatory interlocutory relief in sporting competition cases, the court will give significant weight to the applicant's inability to meet an undertaking as to damages, the impact on third-party clubs, expenditure incurred in reliance on the existing competition structure, and delay in commencing proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.