Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1799

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1799

The conduct of the respondents constituted serious contraventions of s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) involving price fixing and collusive tendering in the fire sprinkler and fire alarm installation markets. Substantial penalties and injunctive relief are justified, primarily to deter similar anti-competitive conduct. The penalties agreed by the parties, with some distinctions for individual respondents’ relative culpability and cooperation, are within the appropriate range and are ordered by the court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Judgment and Final Orders on Penalty and Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Penalties and injunctive relief imposed by consent; orders made as proposed by parties.
Legal Topics
['anti Competitive Conduct' 'price Fixing' 'collusive Tendering' 'penalties' 'injunctions']
['competition Law' 'trade Practices'] ['anti Competitive Conduct' 'price Fixing' 'collusive Tendering' 'penalties' 'injunctions']

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

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Judgment and Final Orders on Penalty and Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents contravened s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by engaging in anti-competitive conduct including price fixing and collusive tendering' 'Appropriate penalties and injunctive relief for such contraventions']

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of the respondents constituted serious contraventions of s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) involving price fixing and collusive tendering in the fire sprinkler and fire alarm installation markets. Substantial penalties and injunctive relief are justified, primarily to deter similar anti-competitive conduct. The penalties agreed by the parties, with some distinctions for individual respondents’ relative culpability and cooperation, are within the appropriate range and are ordered by the court.

Court Disposition

Penalties and injunctive relief imposed by consent; orders made as proposed by parties.

Orders

  • ['Penalty of $1,400,000 imposed upon the first respondent for contraventions after 30 September 1993.' 'Penalty of $3,300,000 imposed upon the second respondent for contraventions after 30 September 1993.' 'Penalty of $50,000 imposed upon the nineteenth respondent for ancillary involvement in contraventions by the...