Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1472

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1472

Given the admitted facts and consent, EGR and Mr Horwill were knowingly concerned in and party to commercial arrangements contravening s 47(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) through exclusive dealing in polycarbonate sheeting, lessening competition in the Distribution Market. The declarations, individually imposed penalties, compliance orders, and costs are appropriate and proportionate.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Oakmoore Pty Ltd (EGR); Fifth Respondent: Rodney Edward Horwill; Second Respondent: Palram Australia Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Ampelite Australia Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Palram Industries (1990) Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Talila Horesh; Seventh Respondent: Hendrikus Antonius Verhagen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding Under Competition Law / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Declarations of contraventions made; pecuniary penalties and compliance program orders imposed; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Dealing, Civil Penalties, Compliance Orders, Market Competition, Accessorial Liability
Competition Law Consumer Law Corporations Law Exclusive Dealing Civil Penalties Compliance Orders Market Competition Accessorial Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Oakmoore Pty Ltd (EGR)

First Respondent

Rodney Edward Horwill

Fifth Respondent

Palram Australia Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Ampelite Australia Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Palram Industries (1990) Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Talila Horesh

Sixth Respondent

Hendrikus Antonius Verhagen

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding Under Competition Law / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were EGR and Mr Horwill knowingly concerned in and party to contraventions of s 47(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) concerning exclusive dealing?
  2. 2 Are the declarations and agreed pecuniary penalties appropriate?
  3. 3 Is a compliance program order appropriate in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the admitted facts and consent, EGR and Mr Horwill were knowingly concerned in and party to commercial arrangements contravening s 47(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) through exclusive dealing in polycarbonate sheeting, lessening competition in the Distribution Market. The declarations, individually imposed penalties, compliance orders, and costs are appropriate and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Declarations of contraventions made; pecuniary penalties and compliance program orders imposed; costs awarded.

Orders

  • EGR ordered to pay pecuniary penalties of $2,100,000 for Ampelite contravention, $2,100,000 for First Palram contravention, $1,800,000 for Second Palram contravention; total $6,000,000 within 90 days.
  • Mr Horwill ordered to pay pecuniary penalties of $125,000 for Ampelite contravention, $125,000 for First Palram contravention, $100,000 for Second Palram contravention; total $350,000 within 90 days.