Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1716

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1716

The penalties imposed by the primary judge took account of the relevant comparisons, including relative size, degree of cooperation, and capacity to pay, and no error of principle or manifest inadequacy was established; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Ithaca Ice Works Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Anthony John Mee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pecuniary Penalty, Price Fixing, Anti Competitive Conduct, Parity Principle, Cooperation With Regulator
Competition Law Pecuniary Penalty Price Fixing Anti Competitive Conduct Parity Principle Cooperation With Regulator

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Appellant

Ithaca Ice Works Pty Limited

First Respondent

Anthony John Mee

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in applying the parity principle when imposing penalties for contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the pecuniary penalties imposed on Ithaca Ice Works Pty Limited and Anthony John Mee were manifestly inadequate
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge should have assessed the penalty by reference to other parties' agreed penalties or by other benchmarks

Ratio Decidendi

The penalties imposed by the primary judge took account of the relevant comparisons, including relative size, degree of cooperation, and capacity to pay, and no error of principle or manifest inadequacy was established; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.