Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Cromford Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 113

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Cromford Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 113

The deliberate and persistent attempts by Cromford Pty Limited and Kim Jones to arrange for fixing, controlling or maintaining prices for polythene building film constituted four contraventions of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act. The statutory purpose of deterrence, nature of conduct, market context, and absence of actual price fixing justify imposing pecuniary penalties for each contravention.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Cromford Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Columbus Merchants Pty Ltd t/as Australian Film and Pipe Manufacturers; Third Respondent: Anross Building Materials Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Neville McDonnell; Fifth Respondent: Kim Jones; Sixth Respondent: Howard Wilkie; Seventh Respondent: Maurice Lewis; Eighth Respondent: Kenneth Ross Murray
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Pecuniary penalty imposed; costs ordered; declarations and injunctions consented.
Legal Topics
Attempted Price Fixing, Pecuniary Penalties, Restrictive Trade Practices, Enforcement and Remedies
Competition Law Trade Practices Attempted Price Fixing Pecuniary Penalties Restrictive Trade Practices Enforcement and Remedies

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Applicant

Cromford Pty Limited

First Respondent

Columbus Merchants Pty Ltd t/as Australian Film and Pipe Manufacturers

Second Respondent

Anross Building Materials Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Neville McDonnell

Fourth Respondent

Kim Jones

Fifth Respondent

Howard Wilkie

Sixth Respondent

Maurice Lewis

Seventh Respondent

Kenneth Ross Murray

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents attempted to make arrangements or arrive at understandings to fix, control or maintain prices in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty assessment for attempted contraventions.

Ratio Decidendi

The deliberate and persistent attempts by Cromford Pty Limited and Kim Jones to arrange for fixing, controlling or maintaining prices for polythene building film constituted four contraventions of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act. The statutory purpose of deterrence, nature of conduct, market context, and absence of actual price fixing justify imposing pecuniary penalties for each contravention.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalty imposed; costs ordered; declarations and injunctions consented.

Orders

  • Cromford Pty Limited pay to the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of $10,000 in respect of each of the four attempts to contravene s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  • Kim Jones pay to the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of $2,000 in respect of each act of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Cromford Pty Limited in four attempts to contravene s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.