Section 92D — Competition and Consumer Act 2010: Determination of applications
Text of the provision Official document
(1) If a declaration mentioned in subsection (2) is in force, the Commission may, in respect of an application for an authorisation under this Division: (a) make a determination in writing granting such authorisation as it considers appropriate; or (b) make a determination in writing dismissing the application. (2) The declarations are the following: (a) a declaration under section 95AE; (b) a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020). (3) The Commission must not make a determination under subsection (1) granting an authorisation in relation to conduct unless the Commission is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the conduct would assist, or would be likely to assist, in the response to or recovery from the exceptional circumstances or emergency to which the declaration relates. (4) In making a determination under subsection (1), the Commission: (a) must have regard to: (i) the likely benefit to the public resulting from the assistance, or likely assistance, in response to or recovery from the exceptional circumstances to which the declaration relates; and (ii) the detriment to the public that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct; and (b) may have regard to any other public benefit that would result or likely result from the conduct. (5) A determination under subsection (1) must specify the exceptional circumstances or emergency to which it relates. (6) The Commission must state in writing its reasons for a determination under subsection (1). (7) The Commission must give the person who made the application written notice of the determination. (8) The Commission must not make a determination to grant a merger authorisation under this section.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →