ACCC v ANZ Ltd (trial)
Federal Court of Australia
[2013] FCA 1206 (18 November 2013) (Trial)
Justice Dowsett
See also
[2015] FCAFC 103 (31 July 2015) (Appeal)
Keywords
purpose, effect or likely effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining a discount, allowance, rebate or credit - effect of lessening competition - market definition - whether parties in competition - whether refund was a rebate
Legislation
Trade Practices Act 1974: section 45A, s 45(2)(a)(ii) and s 45(2)(b)(ii)
Overview
The ACCC alleged that, in 2004, ANZ had required Mortgage Refunds Pty Ltd to agree to limit the amount of refund it could provide in respect of arranging ANZ home loans and that this, as a result, 'ANZ made and gave effect to an agreement where it would only allow Mortgage Refunds to continue to be accredited to offer ANZ mortgage products if it agreed to limit any refund it paid to its customers to $600, which would allow ANZ branches to match the deal if they chose to waive the ANZ loan establishment fee.' This, the ACCC alleged, constituted price fixing under s 45 (with aid of s 45A) of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (now Competition and Consumer Act 2010), because 'ANZ and Mortgage Refunds were competitors in the market for the provision of loan arrangement services.' (see ACCC press release)
The Federal Court dismissed this claim, finding that ANZ and Mortgage Refunds were not competitors and, as a result, the conduct did not constitute price fixing. An appeal by the ACCC was dismissed.
Links
Appeal
ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 103 (31 July 2015) (AustLII)
ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 103 (31 July 2015) (Jade)
Decision at first instance