Trade Practices Commission v. Bamix Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 90

Trade Practices Commission v. Bamix Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 90

The respondent company, through its managing director Mr Peart, engaged in deliberate and sustained resale price maintenance by requiring distributors not to sell below company-specified minimum prices, and communicated these through agreements and memoranda, in contravention of s.48 of the Act. Mr Peart was knowingly concerned in and party to these contraventions. The seriousness of the conduct, the monopoly nature of the products, and the deterrent purpose of penalties warranted significant pecuniary penalties and injunctive relief against future contraventions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant; penalties and injunctions granted.
Legal Topics
['resale Price Maintenance' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'injunctions Under the Trade Practices Act' 'section 48 and Section 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974']
['competition Law' 'trade Practices'] ['resale Price Maintenance' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'injunctions Under the Trade Practices Act' 'section 48 and Section 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974']

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 / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent company engaged in resale price maintenance contrary to s.48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' "Whether Mr Peart was knowingly concerned in or a party to the company's contraventions (s.76(1)(e))" 'Appropriate penalties and injunctive relief under the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent company, through its managing director Mr Peart, engaged in deliberate and sustained resale price maintenance by requiring distributors not to sell below company-specified minimum prices, and communicated these through agreements and memoranda, in contravention of s.48 of the Act. Mr Peart was knowingly concerned in and party to these contraventions. The seriousness of the conduct, the monopoly nature of the products, and the deterrent purpose of penalties warranted significant pecuniary penalties and injunctive relief against future contraventions.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant; penalties and injunctions granted.

Orders

  • ['First respondent (Bamix Australia Pty Ltd) to pay pecuniary penalties totaling $110,000 to the Commonwealth.' 'Second respondent (Arthur David Peart) to pay pecuniary penalties totaling $22,000 to the Commonwealth.' 'Bamix Australia Pty Ltd, its servants, agents or otherwise, until further order, restrained from:...