Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085

The admitted collusive price fixing conduct by mechanical contractors in commercial/industrial air conditioning, through 'designated tenderer' and similar arrangements, contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 45(2)(a)(i),(ii), (b)(i),(ii). The penalty orders (amounts and structure) were determined to be within the appropriate range having regard to seriousness, duration, company size, deterrence, parity, co-operation, and other statutory and judicial guidelines.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: AMEC Australia Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: AMEC Engineering Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Building Services Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Centigrade WA Pty Ltd; Sixth Respondent: CMS Engineering Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Direct Engineering Services Pty Ltd; Eighth Respondent: Envar Engineering and Contractors Pty Ltd; Ninth Respondent: Haden Engineering Pty Ltd; Tenth Respondent: ACN 009 298 686 Pty Ltd (Formerly HVAC Construction Limited); Eleventh Respondent: Jako Industries Pty Ltd; Twelfth Respondent: LL Nominees Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Respondent: Mechanical Project Management Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Respondent: Norfolk Group Holdings Pty Ltd; Fifteenth Respondent: Ralie Pty Ltd; Sixteenth Respondent: Scott Mechanical Services Pty Ltd; Seventeenth Respondent: Tyco Australia Pty Ltd; Eighteenth Respondent: Stephen Leslie Nelson; Nineteenth Respondent: Desmond John Barrie; Twentieth Respondent: Paul Justin Blinco; Twenty First Respondent: Lindsay Robert Albonico; Twenty Second Respondent: Steven Cygulis; Twenty Third Respondent: Christopher Smith; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Richard Jones; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Wayne Redfern; Twenty Sixth Respondent: John Martin Allen; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Lorentz Edward Henny; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Joseph Boris Burmaz; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Peter James Healey; Thirtieth Respondent: Martin Paul Roche; Thirty First Respondent: Trevor Ballantyne; Thirty Second Respondent: Colin Mark Lewis; Thirty Third Respondent: Graeme Russell McLeod; Thirty Fourth Respondent: Velco Antony Jakovich; Thirty Fifth Respondent: Horace Wayne Pierce; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Ian Currie Ferguson; Thirty Seventh Respondent: Peter Charles Moore; Thirty Eighth Respondent: Barry Nicholson Broadley; Thirty Ninth Respondent: Peter Michael Scott
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Penalty Determination
Outcome
Declarations, injunctions, and pecuniary penalties were made as consented or determined for each respondent, penalties varied by conduct and role. Some respondents (notably three) faced no pecuniary penalty due to circumstances and co-operation. All appropriate orders were made regarding costs, consent to compliance...
Legal Topics
Price Fixing, Pecuniary Penalties, Injunctions, Declarations, Trade Practices Compliance, Anti Competitive Conduct
Competition Law Price Fixing Pecuniary Penalties Injunctions Declarations Trade Practices Compliance Anti Competitive Conduct

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 30
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd

First Respondent

AMEC Australia Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

AMEC Engineering Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Building Services Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Centigrade WA Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

CMS Engineering Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Direct Engineering Services Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Envar Engineering and Contractors Pty Ltd

Eighth Respondent

Haden Engineering Pty Ltd

Ninth Respondent

ACN 009 298 686 Pty Ltd (Formerly HVAC Construction Limited)

Tenth Respondent

Jako Industries Pty Ltd

Eleventh Respondent

LL Nominees Pty Ltd

Twelfth Respondent

Mechanical Project Management Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Respondent

Norfolk Group Holdings Pty Ltd

Fourteenth Respondent

Ralie Pty Ltd

Fifteenth Respondent

Scott Mechanical Services Pty Ltd

Sixteenth Respondent

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd

Seventeenth Respondent

Stephen Leslie Nelson

Eighteenth Respondent

Desmond John Barrie

Nineteenth Respondent

Paul Justin Blinco

Twentieth Respondent

Lindsay Robert Albonico

Twenty First Respondent

Steven Cygulis

Twenty Second Respondent

Christopher Smith

Twenty Third Respondent

Richard Jones

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Wayne Redfern

Twenty Fifth Respondent

John Martin Allen

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Lorentz Edward Henny

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Joseph Boris Burmaz

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Peter James Healey

Twenty Ninth Respondent

Martin Paul Roche

Thirtieth Respondent

Trevor Ballantyne

Thirty First Respondent

Colin Mark Lewis

Thirty Second Respondent

Graeme Russell McLeod

Thirty Third Respondent

Velco Antony Jakovich

Thirty Fourth Respondent

Horace Wayne Pierce

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Ian Currie Ferguson

Thirty Sixth Respondent

Peter Charles Moore

Thirty Seventh Respondent

Barry Nicholson Broadley

Thirty Eighth Respondent

Peter Michael Scott

Thirty Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment and Penalty Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriateness and quantum of pecuniary penalties for admitted contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) involving price fixing arrangements
  2. 2 Whether consent declarations, injunctions, and compliance program orders should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted collusive price fixing conduct by mechanical contractors in commercial/industrial air conditioning, through 'designated tenderer' and similar arrangements, contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 45(2)(a)(i),(ii), (b)(i),(ii). The penalty orders (amounts and structure) were determined to be within the appropriate range having regard to seriousness, duration, company size, deterrence, parity, co-operation, and other statutory and judicial guidelines.

Court Disposition

Declarations, injunctions, and pecuniary penalties were made as consented or determined for each respondent, penalties varied by conduct and role. Some respondents (notably three) faced no pecuniary penalty due to circumstances and co-operation. All appropriate orders were made regarding costs, consent to compliance...

Orders

  • Various respondents are ordered to pay pecuniary penalties as specified in the reasons (ranging from $3,500 to $2,740,000 as detailed).
  • Declarations and injunctions made as to contraventions for all relevant respondents.