Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BlueScope Steel Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 625

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BlueScope Steel Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 625

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed OneSteel pecuniary penalty claim against BlueScope was not necessarily time-barred: on the pleaded allegations it was open to the ACCC to argue that BlueScope engaged in a course of conduct continuing until June 2014, with the limitation issue to be determined at trial. However, the OneSteel claim did not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the claims pleaded in the concise statement, which concerned separate attempts involving 11 named suppliers and omitted OneSteel. To preserve BlueScope's limitation defence while permitting the amendment, the amendment was ordered to take effect from 19 December 2019, when the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Originating Application / Matter Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Leave granted to amend the originating application, with the amendments taking effect on 19 December 2019; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Originating Application' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'limitation Period' 'cartel Provisions' 'attempt to Induce an Arrangement or Understanding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 R 8.21']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['amendment of Originating Application' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'limitation Period' 'cartel Provisions' 'attempt to Induce an Arrangement or Understanding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 R 8.21']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Originating Application / Matter Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ACCC should be granted leave under r 8.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to amend its originating application to add claims for declaratory relief and a pecuniary penalty concerning alleged OneSteel conduct.' 'Whether the proposed claim for a pecuniary penalty against BlueScope in respect of the alleged OneSteel conduct is time-barred by s 77(2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).' 'Whether the new claim for relief concerning OneSteel arises out of the same facts, or substantially the same facts, as those already pleaded to support an existing claim for relief.' 'From what date the amendment to the originating application should take effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed OneSteel pecuniary penalty claim against BlueScope was not necessarily time-barred: on the pleaded allegations it was open to the ACCC to argue that BlueScope engaged in a course of conduct continuing until June 2014, with the limitation issue to be determined at trial. However, the OneSteel claim did not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the claims pleaded in the concise statement, which concerned separate attempts involving 11 named suppliers and omitted OneSteel. To preserve BlueScope's limitation defence while permitting the amendment, the amendment was ordered to take effect from 19 December 2019, when the...

Court Disposition

Leave granted to amend the originating application, with the amendments taking effect on 19 December 2019; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to file and serve an amended originating application, in the form provided to the respondents by email on 20 March 2020, on the basis that the amendments take effect on 19 December 2019.' "There be no order as to the costs of the applicant's interlocutory application dated 3 April...