FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 581

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v BAXTER HEALTHCARE PTY LTD AND ORS

N 1153 of 2002

ALLSOP J

16 MAY 2005 (CORRIGENDUM 2 JUNE 2005)

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1153 of 2002

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION APPLICANT
AND:	BAXTER HEALTHCARE PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SECOND RESPONDENT THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2005 (CORRIGENDUM 2 JUNE 2005)
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

1. After paragraph 629 there be inserted a paragraph 629A, which is to read:

To conclude that the interference with the State tender process substantially affects or is likely to affect competition is not to undermine my earlier conclusion that the PD market is an Australia wide one. Rather, though the States are of varying sizes, to affect each State tender process was, in my view, to lessen competition or be likely to do so in a meaningful way for the Australian market. This can be seen either by reference to the meaningful number of PD patients in each State (including in South Australia, though not a huge number there) or as affecting tender processes in sovereign States within the Australian market.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1153 of 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND:

BAXTER HEALTHCARE PTY LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THIRD RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	6 MAY 2005 (CORRIGENDUM 2 JUNE 2005)
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR CORRIGENDUM

1 Since handing down my reasons in this proceeding on 16 May 2005 I realised that I overlooked inserting in the final draft a paragraph, which I had intended for some time to include. During the final preparation of the reasons for judgment and the proofing, which took some time, I overlooked the inclusion of this paragraph. The paragraph can probably be recognised as implicit in my reasons in any event. Nevertheless, I think it important to explain to the parties the fact that I neglected to include the paragraph.

2 This explains the nature of the corrigendum today.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Corrigendum herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated: 2 June 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A I Tonking

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr I S Wylie

Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:	Ms K Kerr (Slr)

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent:	NSW Crown Solicitor

Date of Corrigendum:	2 June 2005

Top