Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Navman Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2061

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Navman Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2061

Navman's contraventions were serious, deliberate, aggressive, high-handed and carried out over a lengthy period by senior managers in a corporate culture not conducive to compliance, so significant penalties were required for general deterrence. Despite reservations about the individual penalties and the Navman penalty being at the bottom of the permissible range, the agreed penalties were within the permissible range and it was not a clear case for departing from the parties' agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Proceeding for Resale Price Maintenance Contraventions and Pecuniary Penalties / Final Judgment on Agreed Pecuniary Penalties
Outcome
Agreed penalties accepted as appropriate; declarations and orders agreed by the parties made.
Legal Topics
['resale Price Maintenance' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'agreed Penalties' 'deterrence' 'accessorial Liability' 'corporate Compliance']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'trade Practices'] ['resale Price Maintenance' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'agreed Penalties' 'deterrence' 'accessorial Liability' 'corporate Compliance']

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

Trade Practices Proceeding for Resale Price Maintenance Contraventions and Pecuniary Penalties / Final Judgment on Agreed Pecuniary Penalties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreed pecuniary penalties for admitted contraventions of s 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) were within the permissible range under s 76 of the Act.' "What penalty considerations applied to Navman's multiple resale price maintenance contraventions over more than three years." "What penalties were appropriate for Mr Baird and Mr King for their involvement in Navman's contraventions within the meaning of s 75B of the Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

Navman's contraventions were serious, deliberate, aggressive, high-handed and carried out over a lengthy period by senior managers in a corporate culture not conducive to compliance, so significant penalties were required for general deterrence. Despite reservations about the individual penalties and the Navman penalty being at the bottom of the permissible range, the agreed penalties were within the permissible range and it was not a clear case for departing from the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Agreed penalties accepted as appropriate; declarations and orders agreed by the parties made.

Orders

  • ['Orders in accordance with short minutes provided by the parties and kept with the papers.' 'Navman (Australia) Pty Limited (now known as Aus Holdco Pty Ltd): pecuniary penalty of $1,250,000.' 'Mr Baird: pecuniary penalty of $80,000.' 'Mr King: pecuniary penalty of $30,000.']