Trade Practices Commission v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd & Anor [1983] FCA 99

Trade Practices Commission v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd & Anor [1983] FCA 99

The first respondent, by the acts of its officer Bint, attempted and attempted to induce others to contravene s 45(2)(a), and its liability is established under both directing mind/will principles and s 84(2) of the Act. The second respondent, through its manager Achterberg acting with the necessary intention, attempted and attempted to induce others to contravene s 45(2)(a). The third respondent (Bint) attempted to induce the second respondent to contravene s 45(2)(a). Liability is established.

Parties
Applicant: Trade Practices Commission; First Respondent: Tubemakers of Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Steel Supplies (Aust) Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Barry Neil Bint
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Liability; Quantum of Penalty Adjourned
Outcome
Liability established against all respondents for attempts and attempted inducement to contravene s.45(2)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974; quantum of penalty and other relief adjourned.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Trade Practices, Arrangements or Understandings Affecting Competition, Attempt to Contravene Competition Law, Corporate Liability Under Trade Practices Act
Competition Law Restrictive Trade Practices Arrangements or Understandings Affecting Competition Attempt to Contravene Competition Law Corporate Liability Under Trade Practices Act

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Applicant

Tubemakers of Australia Limited

First Respondent

Steel Supplies (Aust) Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Barry Neil Bint

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Liability; Quantum of Penalty Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondents attempt to make or induce an arrangement or understanding to control discounts on steel products contrary to s 45(2)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974?
  2. 2 Were the acts of individuals attributable to the corporate respondents under s 84(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974?
  3. 3 Did the individuals have the necessary intention to constitute an attempt to contravene the Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent, by the acts of its officer Bint, attempted and attempted to induce others to contravene s 45(2)(a), and its liability is established under both directing mind/will principles and s 84(2) of the Act. The second respondent, through its manager Achterberg acting with the necessary intention, attempted and attempted to induce others to contravene s 45(2)(a). The third respondent (Bint) attempted to induce the second respondent to contravene s 45(2)(a). Liability is established.

Court Disposition

Liability established against all respondents for attempts and attempted inducement to contravene s.45(2)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974; quantum of penalty and other relief adjourned.

Orders

  • The first respondent attempted to contravene s.45(2)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, attempted to induce the second respondent and others to contravene s.45(2)(a).
  • The second respondent attempted to contravene s.45(2)(a) and attempted to induce others to contravene s.45(2)(a).