Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jaycee Rectification & Building Services & Ors [1996] FCA 824

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jaycee Rectification & Building Services & Ors [1996] FCA 824

The admitted arrangements and understandings, including agreed tender prices, refraining from competition and false quotations, proved contraventions of the TPA. Although the conduct was blatant, the respondents were small operators, the conduct involved ten incidents over five years, had minimal market effect, involved cooperation with the Commission, no prior similar conduct, financial hardship, accepted ignorance of the TPA breaches, and no evidence of customer loss or damage. Those unusual features justified accepting the jointly proposed low pecuniary penalties and making injunctive and costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Declarations, Injunctive Orders, Pecuniary Penalties and Costs Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Admitted Contraventions and Joint Submissions on Penalty
Outcome
Pecuniary penalties, injunctive relief and costs orders made against the respondents in the agreed terms.
Legal Topics
['price Fixing' 'collusive Tendering' 'exclusionary Provisions' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'civil Pecuniary Penalties' 'injunctions' 'joint Submissions on Penalty']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'trade Practices'] ['price Fixing' 'collusive Tendering' 'exclusionary Provisions' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'civil Pecuniary Penalties' 'injunctions' 'joint Submissions on Penalty']

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 Proceedings for Declarations, Injunctive Orders, Pecuniary Penalties and Costs Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Admitted Contraventions and Joint Submissions on Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Jaycee contravened sub-pars 45(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and 45(2)(b)(i) and (ii), sub-s 45A(1), and s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' "Whether Joaquin Ciganda and Anthony Julian Lodge aided or abetted, counselled or procured, induced, were party to, or were directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in Jaycee's contraventions." 'Whether the Court should accept the penalties jointly proposed by the Commission and the respondents.' 'What injunctive and costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted arrangements and understandings, including agreed tender prices, refraining from competition and false quotations, proved contraventions of the TPA. Although the conduct was blatant, the respondents were small operators, the conduct involved ten incidents over five years, had minimal market effect, involved cooperation with the Commission, no prior similar conduct, financial hardship, accepted ignorance of the TPA breaches, and no evidence of customer loss or damage. Those unusual features justified accepting the jointly proposed low pecuniary penalties and making injunctive and costs orders.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalties, injunctive relief and costs orders made against the respondents in the agreed terms.

Orders

  • ['The First Respondent Jaycee Rectification and Building Services Pty Ltd pay a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $10,000.00.' 'The Second Respondent Joaquin Ciganda pay a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $5,000.00.' 'The Third Respondent Anthony Julian Lodge pay a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $10,000.00.'...