About Jason
Jason Rudaizky is a senior associate in the firm’s competition and intellectual property practices.
He has acted in a diverse range of regulatory investigations and general commercial disputes. Jason also advises on issues arising under competition and consumer law and intellectual property law.
Jason joined the firm as a graduate in 2019 and was admitted to practice in 2020. Jason holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Commerce from Monash University as well as a Juris Doctor from the University of Melbourne.
Practice focus
Jason’s practice focuses on the following areas:
- competition law, including mergers and acquisitions, cartel and other anticompetitive conduct and regulated infrastructure (including access regimes)
- consumer law, including misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms and consumer protection
- trade mark, copyright and patent infringement, and
- contractual disputes.
Experience
Jason has acted for clients on a range of matters, including:
Competition and consumer law
- Fonterra: in a class action proceeding relating to contractual obligations owed to milk suppliers, concerning allegations of misleading conduct and unconscionability
- Tasmanian Ports Corporation: in Federal Court proceedings brought by the ACCC for misuse of market power – the first litigation brought by the ACCC pursuant to the amended misuse of market provision
- Port of Portland: dealing with the ACCC on behalf of the port to advocate for the maintenance and access regulation of the rail line leading to the port
- Hobart Airport: in a dispute with an airline regarding the terms on which the airline could use Hobart Airport’s facilities
- a major Australian port company: in relation to advice regarding pricing, transport infrastructure access and misuse of market power, and
- a state government department: in relation to advice regarding transport infrastructure access.
Intellectual property
- Fonterra: in proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Bega Cheese Limited relating to a trade mark licence. The case concerned issues of alleged breaches of express and implied terms of a trade mark licensing agreement, licence construction, rectification, restraint of trade, and misleading and deceptive conduct.
