Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 290

Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 290

The pleaded arrangements were serious collusive tendering arrangements that corrupted market forces to the detriment of the Commonwealth and the public. Having regard to the seriousness of the Special Fee agreement and the unsuccessful tenderers' fees agreement, the maximum available penalties for two corporate contraventions, the additional pleaded contraventions, and the mitigating factors including early withdrawal of the defence, cooperation, changed management and reimbursements, the agreed penalties totalling $400,000 were within the range the Court would have contemplated and were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Proceeding for Pecuniary Penalties, Declarations and Injunctive Relief / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Following Withdrawal of Defence by the Third Respondent for the Purpose of Fixing Penalty
Outcome
Declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctive relief and costs orders made against the third respondent, Holland Stolte Pty Limited.
Legal Topics
['restrictive Trade Practices' 'collusive Tendering' 'arrangements or Understandings Substantially Lessening Competition' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctive Relief']
['trade Practices' 'competition Law'] ['restrictive Trade Practices' 'collusive Tendering' 'arrangements or Understandings Substantially Lessening Competition' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctive Relief']

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 Pecuniary Penalties, Declarations and Injunctive Relief / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Following Withdrawal of Defence by the Third Respondent for the Purpose of Fixing Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What pecuniary penalties should be imposed on Holland Stolte Pty Limited for making the Special Fee agreement and the unsuccessful tenderers' fees agreement in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)." 'Whether the agreed penalties, declarations, injunctions and costs orders proposed by the Trade Practices Commission and Holland Stolte Pty Limited were appropriate.' 'What mitigating factors should be taken into account in fixing the penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded arrangements were serious collusive tendering arrangements that corrupted market forces to the detriment of the Commonwealth and the public. Having regard to the seriousness of the Special Fee agreement and the unsuccessful tenderers' fees agreement, the maximum available penalties for two corporate contraventions, the additional pleaded contraventions, and the mitigating factors including early withdrawal of the defence, cooperation, changed management and reimbursements, the agreed penalties totalling $400,000 were within the range the Court would have contemplated and were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctive relief and costs orders made against the third respondent, Holland Stolte Pty Limited.

Orders

  • ['Declared that by making or arriving at the arrangement referred to in paragraph 21 of the Amended Statement of Claim, Holland Stolte Pty Limited contravened s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Ordered that Holland Stolte Pty Limited pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of...