Penalties and remedies
JUMP TO A TOPIC
Overview | The legislation | Civil penalties | Criminal penalties | Cases | Guidelines | Further resources
Overview
Civil penalties
The civil remedies/penalties available for contraventions of both Division 1 and Division 2 of Part IV of the CCA include:
(1) pecuniary penalties (s 76)
(2) damages (s 82)
(3) injunctions (s 80) (not available to private parties in merger cases)
(4) divestiture (in relation to mergers) (s 81)
(5) non-punitive orders (eg, community service) (s 86C)
(6) punitive orders - adverse publicity orders (s 86D)
(7) disqualification from directorship (s 86E)
(8) other orders (s 87)
The Federal Court is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to s 163A.
Criminal penalties
Criminal penalties are also available for cartel conduct only (since 24 July 2009):
Section 79 - Offences against section 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG
Section 79A - Enforcement and recovery of certain fines
Section 79B - Preference must be given to compensation for victims
It is the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) which has the power to bring criminal indictments under the Act. The ACCC will refer serious cartel matters to the CDPP.
See also:
The legislation
Part VI of the CCA contains enforcement and remedies provisions.
Civil penalties
Pecuniary penalties
Circumstances in which penalty can be imposed
The court may impose a pecuniary penalty if satisfied a person (including a corporation) has contravened, attempted to contravene, aided or induced contravention or in any other way been involved in a contravention of Part IV of the Act.
Specifically, section 76(1) provides that the Court may impose a pecuniary penalty if satisfied a person (including a corporation) has:
contravened a provision of Part IV;
attempted to contravene a provision of Part IV; or
'aided, abetted, counselled or procured' a contravention of a provision of Part IV; or
induced or attempted to induce a contravention of a provision of Part IV; or
been 'in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention' by a person of a provision of Part IV; or
'has conspired with others' to contravene a provision of Part IV.
Maximum pecuniary penalty
For corporations
The maximum penalty varies depending on the contravention. For most forms of anti-competitive conduct* the maximum penalty for a corporation is the highest of (s 76(1B))**
(a) $50,000,000; or
(b) three times the total value of benefits obtained ‘by one or more persons and that are reasonably attributable to the act or omission’; or
(c) if the Court cannot determine the value of any benefit, ‘30% of the body corporate’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period for the act or omission.’
* For contraventions relating to certain secondary boycotts (ss 45D, 45DB, 45E and 45EA) the maximum penalty is $750,000 for corporations
** The maximum penalty substantially increased on 10 November 2022. following the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022. The previous increase had occurred on 1 January 2007 following passage of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006.
For individuals
For individuals, a contravention of Part IV attracts a maximum penalty of $500,000** (s 76(1B))
Determining the appropriate penalty
Subject to the maximum penalty, the Court may order payment of a pecuniary penalty as it determines:
'appropriate having regard to all relevant matters including the nature and extent of the act or omission and of any loss or damage suffered as a result of the act or omission, the circumstances in which the act or omission took place and whether the person has previously been found by the Court in proceedings under this Part or Part XIB to have engaged in any similar conduct.' (s 76(1))
Section 76(1) makes clear that the following key factors may be taken into account:
Nature and extent of the act or omission
Any loss or damage resulting from the act or omission
Circumstances in which act or omission has taken place
Previous contraventions
The list is not exclusive and judicial guidance is useful.
TPC v CSR [1990] FCA 762; (1991) ATPR 41-076
In TPC v CSR Justice French (as he then was) the Court set out a number of general principles relating to pecuniary penalties [my emphasis]. These continue to be cited with approval.
[para 38] The provisions of Pt. IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 are directed to procuring and maintaining competition in trade and commerce ... They are of a regulatory rather than penal character. Proceedings for their enforcement by recovery of pecuniary penalties are not classed as criminal prosecutions. ... Unlike many kinds of criminal prosecution, therefore, it is not necessary to measure the contravening conduct against some general communal morality in which the law is embedded. Aspects of some commercial behaviour, such as ruthlessness and expansionary ambition, are not elements of the classes of conduct prohibited by Pt. IV nor even aggravating factors. For those same attributes may be found in vigorous and lawful competition.
[para 39] characterisation of contravening conduct in terms of a morality larger than that which is defined by the legislative purpose is misplaced. ...
[para 40] Punishment for breaches of the criminal law traditionally involves three elements: deterrence, both general and individual, retribution and rehabilitation. Neither retribution nor rehabilitation, within the sense of the Old and New Testament moralities that imbue much of our criminal law, have any part to play in economic regulation of the kind contemplated by Pt. IV. Nor, if it be necessary to say so, is there any compensatory element in the penalty fixing process ... The principal, and I think probably the only, object of the penalties imposed by s.76 is to attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravenor and by others who might be tempted to contravene the Act.
[para 41] There has been a significant number of decisions of the Court which have considered the operation of s.76 ... The primacy of the deterrent purpose in the imposition of penalty was identified at an early stage
[para 42] The assessment of a penalty of appropriate deterrent value will have regard to a number of factors which have been canvassed in the cases. These include the following:
1. The nature and extent of the contravening conduct.
2. The amount of loss or damage caused.
3. The circumstances in which the conduct took place.
4. The size of the contravening company.
5. The degree of power it has, as evidenced by its market share and ease of entry into the market.
6. The deliberateness of the contravention and the period over which it extended.
7. Whether the contravention arose out of the conduct of senior management or at a lower level.
8. Whether the company has a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act, as evidenced by educational programs and disciplinary or other corrective measures in response to an acknowledged contravention.
9. Whether the company has shown a disposition to co-operate with the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to the contravention.
The first three factors are all expressly mentioned in s.76. They can be regarded as measures of the scope and impact of the conduct and it is conducive to deterrence that the greater the significance of these elements, the heavier the penalty should be. ... The need for commercial realism in fixing penalties has been mentioned in more than one decision of the Court. In Trade Practices Commission v. Stihl Chain Saws (Aust) Pty Ltd (1978) ATPR 40-091, Smithers J. at 17,896 said:
"The penalty should constitute a real punishment proportionate to the deliberation with which the defendant contravened the provisions of the Act. It should be sufficiently high to have a deterrent quality, and it should be kept in mind that the Act operates in a commercial environment where deterrence of those minded to contravene its provisions is not likely to be achieved by penalties which are not realistic. It should reflect the will of Parliament that the commercial standards laid down in the Act must be observed, but not be so high as to be oppressive."
...
ACCC v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020
[admitted contravention of s 47; discussion of relevant principles relating to pecuniary penalties from para 80, including the following:]
[80] The starting point in considering the relevant principles in relation to the fixing of an appropriate pecuniary penalty for a contravention of s 47 of the Act is, not surprisingly, the terms of s 76. The amount of the pecuniary penalty that the Court should order the contravener to pay is the amount which the Court determines to be “appropriate” having regard to all relevant matters. Four particular considerations are then listed. These four considerations may be taken to be mandatory considerations. They are: first, the nature and extent of the act or omission which constitutes the relevant contravention; second, any loss or damage suffered as a result of the act or omission; third, the circumstances in which the act or omission took place; and fourth, whether the person has previously been found by the Court in proceedings under Parts VI and XIB to have engaged in similar conduct. This list is obviously not exhaustive.
[81] Since the decision of this Court in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 it has been customary for judges, when fixing the amount of a pecuniary penalty or penalties under s 76 of the Act, to refer to a checklist of matters that are usually relevant to the exercise of determining an appropriate pecuniary penalty. This list, which has been expanded and developed in later cases, largely overlaps with the four mandatory considerations referred to in s 76, or includes matters that are subsets of, or slightly more specific descriptions of factors that would otherwise fall within one or more of the four mandatory considerations.
[82] Lest it be thought that there has been some departure from custom here, the list of potentially relevant matters includes the following: the size and financial position of the contravening company; whether the contravention was intentional; the period over which the contravention extended; whether the contravening conduct was systematic, deliberate or covert; whether senior management were aware of or involved in the contravention; whether the contravening company had a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act; whether the company co-operated with the ACCC; whether the contravener has engaged in similar conduct in the past; and the effect on the functioning of the market and other economic effects of the conduct. Each of these matters is relevant, to a greater or lesser extent, to the fixing of the penalty in this case.
[83] This list is plainly not exhaustive. Nor should it be approached in a regimented or formulaic way. To do that would impermissibly constrain or formalise what is, at the end of the day, a broad evaluative judgment.
...
Where the same conduct contravenes multiple provisions
Where conduct contravenes two or more provisions (other than the criminal cartel provisions) action may be brought in relation to one or more provisions, but a person is not liable to more than one pecuniary penalty in respect of the same conduct (s 76(3)).
Compensation given priority over fine
Section 79B provides that if the Court considers it appropriate to order payment of a pecuniary penalty (under s 76) or a fine (under ss 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG) and that it is appropriate to to order the defendant to pay compensation to a person suffering loss or damage as a result of the contravention and that the defendant lacks the financial resources to pay both, priority must be given to an order for compensation.
Cooperation policy in relation to pecuniary penalties
The ACCC, Cooperation Policy for Enforcement Matters (July 2002) ➤ sets out the ACCC's position regarding immunity or leniency following cooperation in enforcement matters. The guidelines are expressed to be 'flexible and intended only as an indication of the factors the Commission will consider relevant when considering leniency'. Recognition of cooperation can take the form of complete or partial immunity, reduction in penalty or administrative settlement in lieu of litigation. It applies to all civil matters under the Act.
In relation to penalties, however, it is important to note that it is only the Court that can impose penalties and determine their appropriate measure. The ACCC can, and frequently does, agree with parties who have made admissions and/or cooperated in ways about the penalties to put to the Court. Doubt about whether or not the ACCC could continue to make submissions about proposed penalties was removed as a result of a High Court ruling in 2015; see 'agreed penalties', below.
Agreed penalties
It is only the Court that can impose penalties and determine their appropriate measure. The ACCC can, and frequently does, agree with parties who have made admissions and/or cooperated in ways about the penalties to put to the Court.
In 2015 some doubt emerged about whether or not the ACCC could continue to make submissions about proposed penalties when the Full Federal Court ruled that joint submissions by parties in relation to pecuniary parties was not permitted. Although not a competition case, it would have equal application to such cases. This followed an earlier High Court decision (Barbaro ➤) in which that Court held that the prosecution should not nominating a sentencing range in relation to criminal sentencing proceedings.
The matter was appealed to the High Court and the key issue on appeal to the High Court was whether or not the reasoning inBarbaro ➤ should be applied to civil pecuniary penalties or whether parties could continue to make joint submissions with regulators in relation to an appropriate penalty or penalty range. The High Court unanimously held that the reasoning in Barbaro ➤ did not apply to civil pecuniary penalties and that, as a result, parties to civil proceedings can continue to submit agreed penalties to the court (which may or may not be accepted).
In their joint judgment, French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ concluded that 'decision in Barbaro ➤does not apply to civil penalty proceedings and a court is not precluded from receiving and, if appropriate, accepting an agreed or other civil penalty submission.' (para 1). In separate (brief) reasons for judgment, Justice Gageler agreed with the conclusion in the majority reasons that Barbaro does not apply to civil penalty proceedings and joined in the proposed orders. In a separate reasons Justice Keane also agreed that the appeals should be allowed for the reasons given by the majority and made a few additional observations.
For more details see:
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Anor v. Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Anor (B45/2015) ➤(High Court case page)
Penalty cases
Most cases involve discussion of pecuniary penalties. They include:
TPC v CSR [1990] FCA 762; (1991) ATPR 41-076
Seminal case on penalties - general principles
Damages
Private actions may be brought for contraventions of the competition law provisions
A person who suffers loss or damage by conduct of another which contravenes Part IV may recover the amount of that loss. Action must be brought within six years from the date the cause of action arose.
The provision (section 82)
Section 82 of the CCA provides:
(1) A person who suffers loss or damage by conduct of another person that was done in contravention of a provision of Part IV or IVB, or of section 55B, 60C or 60K, may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person or against any person involved in the contravention.
(2) An action under subsection (1) may be commenced at any time within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action that relates to the conduct accrued.
Matters to consider
In Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 235 (19 March 2013) Justice Gordon set out the elements of a damages claim under section 82 (my emphasis):
[301] Section 82 has at least five discrete elements: Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Limited [1998] HCA 69; (1998) 196 CLR 494 ➤ at [95]. One element is that only a person who has suffered loss or damage may rely on the section: I & L Securities Pty Limited v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Limited [2002] HCA 41; (2002) 210 CLR 109 ➤ at [42]- [45]. Another element is the causal requirement that the injury be sustained by the contravention: Marks ➤ at [95]. If the Court finds that damage has occurred, it must do its best to quantify the loss even if a degree of speculation and guess work is involved: Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 373; (1984) 57 ALR 167 ➤ at 183. Of course, loss or damage includes economic or financial loss as well consequential loss which is a direct result of the conduct in question: Wardley Australia Limited v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 175 CLR 514 ➤ and Frith v Gold Coast Mineral Springs Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 28; (1983) 65 FLR 213 ➤ at 232.
Cases
There has been relatively little private litigation in competition law matters giving rise to damages claims; in many cases the matters have been settled prior to judgment. A recent example is:
Norcast S.ár.L v Bradken Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 235 (19 March 2013)
Seminal case on penalties - general principles
For a useful list of competition cases involving private litigation between 2004-2014 (and the outcomes) see:
Alexandra Merrett and Rhonda L Smith, 'The public benefits of private litigation' (July 2014) 19 The State of Competition ➤
Injunctions
Except in relation to merger matters (where application for injunction is restricted to the ACCC: s 80(1A)), an application for an injunction may be made by any person (inc the ACCC). It is not necessary for the applicant to have suffered or be likely to suffer loss or damage (section 80).
The Court may grant an injunction in terms it considers appropriate where satisfied a person has engaged in, or is proposing to engage in, conduct contravening the Act (inc aiding and abetting contravention).
Divestiture
Where the Court finds that there has been a contravention of the merger provisions it may make an order for divestiture. In particular, section 81(1) provides that the ACCC or any other person may apply for an order giving 'directions for the purpose of securing the disposal by the person of all or any of the shares or assets acquired in contravention of that section.'
Non-punitive orders (86C)
On application fo the ACCC or the CDPP, the Court may make an adverse publicity order in relation to a person found guilty of a cartel offence.
Punitive orders (86D)
Adverse publicity orders may be made in relation to a person who has been ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under s 76 or who has been found guilty of a cartel offence (s 86D(1))
Disqualification from directorship (86E)
On application by the ACCC (or the CDPP in the case of cartel offences) a Court may, if satisfied a person has contravened, attempted to contravene, or been involved in a contravention of Part IV, order disqualification if it is satisfied such an order is justified.
When determining whether such disqualification is justified the Court may have regard to the persons 'conduct in relation to the management, business or property of any corporation' and any other matters it considers appropriate.
Other orders
The Federal Court has broad power to make other remedial orders as a result of contraventions of Part IV. Other orders are, however, only available where proceedings have been instituted under one of the other provisions of Part IV (such as s 80 or s 82) (primary proceedings) and allows for ancillary remedial orders where loss or damage is suffered, regardless of whether there is an order for relief in the principal proceedings.
Section 87(2) sets out the remedial orders that can be made. They include:
declaring a contract void - an order declaring the whole or part of a contract, made between the person suffering (or likely to suffer) loss and the party who has contravened the Act, void (ab initio or from a subsequent date)
an order varying a contract
an order refusing to enforce any or all of the provisions of a contract
an order directing the refund of money or return of property to the person suffering loss or damage
an order directing payment of damages in the amount of loss or damage suffered
an order directing the repair of goods supplied
an order directing supply of services
an order relating to an instrument creating or transferring an interest in land, directing the person to execute an instrument varying the first-mentioned instrument or terminating the operation of the first-mentioned instrument
Criminal penalties
Overview
Criminal remedies for cartel conduct are available (since 24 July 2009):
Section 45AF - Making a contract etc containing a cartel provision (previously 44ZZRF)
Section 45AG - Giving effect to a cartel provision (previously 44ZZRG)
Section 79B - Preference must be given to compensation for victims
It is the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) which has the power to bring criminal indictments under the Act. The ACCC will refer serious cartel matters to the CDPP.
See also:
Briefly, against a corporation a Court may impose impose a fine not exceeding the greater of (ss 45AF and 45AG):
$50 million; or
if the Court can determine the value of benefits obtained and reasonably attributable to the conduct, three times that value; or
if the court cannot determine the total value of those benefits—30% of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period for the offence.
Against an individual involved in the contravention, the Court may impose a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine not exceeding 2,000 penalty units (or both) (s 79).
The offences contained in s 45AF and s 45AG are indictable offences.
For corporations
A corporation convicted of committing an offence by making or giving effect to a cartel provision is subject to fines not exceeding the greater of (ss 45AF and 45AG):
$50 million; or
if the Court can determine the value of benefits obtained and reasonably attributable to the conduct, three times that value; or
if the court cannot determine the total value of those benefits—30% of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period for the offence.
The offences contained in ss 45AF and 45AG are indictable offences.
There has been several criminal corporate fines since the penalties were introduced. The first was against NYK and involved admitted conduct with a substantial discount for cooperation (50%). The maximum penalty was $100m (based on 10% of turnover) and the appropriate penalty was held to be $50m before the discount for cooperation was applied:
For individuals
An individual who (s 79(1)):
attempts to contravene; or
'aids, abets, counsels or procures a person to contravene'; or
'induces, or attempts to induce, a person ... to contravene'; or
'is in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by a person of'; of
'conspires with others to contravene'
'a cartel offence provision is 'taken to have contravened that provision and is punishable' by:
a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years; or
a fine not exceeding 2,000 penalty units (currently valued at $360,000); or
both
An individual involved in the contravention, the Court may impose a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine not exceeding 2,000 penalty units (s 79).
A penalty unit is defined in s 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914. From 2016 the penalty unit has been equivalent to $180. The next review of the value of a penalty unit is due late 2018.
Priority given to compensation
Section 79B provides that if the Court considers it appropriate to order payment of a pecuniary penalty (under s 76) or a fine (under ss 44ZZRF or 44ZZRG) and that it is appropriate to to order the defendant to pay compensation to a person suffering loss or damage as a result of the contravention and that the defendant lacks the financial resources to pay both, priority must be given to an order for compensation.
Cooperation
The ACCC currently has immunity and cooperation policies in place for cartel conduct. See cartels page.
Cases
See generally the main cases page (most cases involve some discussion of penalty). The sample cases below are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list.
On pecuniary penalties (general principles and application)
TPC v CSR [1990] FCA 762; (1991) ATPR 41-076
Seminal case on penalties - general principles
ACCC v Australian Abalone Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1834
Admitted price fixing and boycott conduct - discussion of agreed penalties and mention of proposed criminal penalties
ACCC v Ticketek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1489 (22 December 2011)
Discussion of measure of penalties - agreed penalties
ACCC v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020
Admitted contravention of s 47 (exclusive dealing); pecuniary penalty
ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Pty Limited (No 3) [2007] FCA 1617 (2 November 2007)
Admission of cartel conduct - penalties of $36m + imposed
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13 (13 April 2022) ➤
High Court held that the notion of proportionality does not have a role to play in determining civil penalties
[Not a competition case but likely to have significant implications in civil competition cases]
On agreed penalties
On legality
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Anor v. Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Anor (B45/2015) ➤ (High Court case page)
General principles and examples
ACCC v Koyo Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 105 (18 October 2013)
Admitted cartel conduct - penalties by consent
ACCC v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 693
Price fixing - joint submission on orders - principles governing joint submissions
ACCC v NSK Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 453 (13 May 2014)
Price fixing (admitted)
ACCC v QANTAS Airways Ltd (2008) ATPR 42-266; [2008] FCA 1976 ➤
Collusive conduct - SLC - Penalties - Admission of liability
ACCC v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd (trading as Supagas NSW) and Speed-E-Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1135
Cartel conduct - agreed penalties totalling $8.3 million (contraventions admitted) - cooperation
TPC v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 142; (1981) 60 FLR 38Agreed penalties
On criminal penalties
CDPP v Joyce [2022] FCA 1423 and CDPP v Alkaloids [2022] FCA 1424
Guilty plea - company and individual. Joyce convicted and sentenced to 32 months imprisonment by way of intensive correction in the community. Alkaloids fined just under $2m.
CDPP v Vina Money Transfer Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 665
Corporate and individual offenders - guilty pleas.
CDPP v Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS [2021] FCA 52
Corporate offender pleaded guilty to criminal cartel conduct
CDPP v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [2019] FCA 1170
Corporate offender pleaded guilty to criminal cartel conduct
CDPP v Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha [2017] FCA 876
Admitted contravention - discount for cooperation - consideration of Crimes Act factors
ACCC Guidelines
The ACCC published penalty guidelines in August 2023.
Guidelines on ACCC approach to penalties in competition and consumer law matters (30 August 2023)
Further resources
Reading
For research and commentary on penalties in Australia see the reading room.
For a recent benchmarking report on pecuniary penalties in Australia see OECD, 'Pecuniary penalties for competition law infringements in Australia' ➤ (March 2018)
For a comprehensive discussion of Australia's cartel laws, including criminal penalties, see:
Beaton-Wells and Fisse, Australian Cartel Regulation: Law, Policy and Practice in an International Context (Cambridge University Press, 2011) ➤
On measure of penalties
Michael Ferguson and Scott Meacock, 'Enforcements and Remedies: Cartel conduct: A survey of the ACCC's enforcement activity' (2014) 22 AJCCL 46
On criminal penalties
Graeme Edgerton and Luke Woodward, 'Criminalisation of cartels' in Michael Legg, Regulation, litigation and enforcement, Thomson (2011) (chapter 14)
Justice Ray Finkelstein, 'Crimes and punishments of competition law' (2011) 18 CCLJ 207
Caron Beaton-Wells and Brent Fisse, 'U.S. Policy and Practice in Pursuing Individual Accountability for Cartel Conduct: A Preliminary Critique' (2010) Antitrust Bulletin
Caron-Beaton-Wells and Fiona Haines, 'The Australian Conversion: How the Case for Cartel Criminalisation Was Made' (2010) New Journal of European Criminal Law
Julie Clarke, 'Running a Cartel? Go Directly to Jail' (May 2010) Law Institute Journal 52
Graeme Davidson, 'The Role of the CDPP in the Prosecution of the Proposed Cartel Offence', Competition Law Conference, Sydney, 23 May 2009
On agreed penalties
Anne Rees, 'Status quo restored: High Court approves use of agreed civil penalty submissions' (2016) 32(1) Competition and Consumer Law News 134
Ayman Guirguis, Richard Flitcroft and Asa Lam, 'Where to now for agreed civil penalty outcomes following the CFMEU and Barbaro decisions?' (2015) 31(5) Competition and Consumer Law News 62
Ayman Guirguis, Sarah Godden and Asa Lam, 'ACCC v Chopra: penalty submissions in the aftermath of CFMEU and Barbaro' (August 2015) 31 Competition and Consumer Law News 76
Peter Renehan and Peta Stevenson, 'Purity But at What Price: The Application of Barbaro Principles to Pecuniary Penalty Proceedings' (2015) 23(1) Competition and Consumer Law Journal
Kirsten Webb and Anchal Kapur, 'No Agreement over Agreed Penalties' (2015) 31(9-10) Competition and Consumer Law News 114
Law firm commentary on High Court ruling
Clayton Utz, 'Negotiating agreed penalties with regulators is OK, says High Court' (9 December 2015) ➤
On damages
Matthew Eglezos, 'Recovering cartel damages: The passing-on defence under the Trade Practices Act' (2010) 38 ABLR 174
Richard Owens, 'Criminalisation of Cartels in Australia' (1 March 2010) at SSRN ➤
On class actions
Robert McGregor and Dawnie Lam, 'Airlines Class Action: Full Federal Court Overturns Strike Out Judgment: Auskay International Manufacturing and Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Limited [2010] FCAFC 6' (2011) 36(1) Air and Space Law 79-82
Kate Watts and Tova Gordon, 'Cartel class actions: Recent developments in Australia' (2010) 18 Trade Practices Law Journal 81
On divestiture
On private enforcement generally
Rebecca Gilsenan, 'Could the Harper Review recommendations revive private enforcement of cartel prohibitions?' (2016) 24 Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law 6
Alexandra Merrett and Rhonda L Smith, 'The public benefits of private litigation' (July 2014) 19 The State of Competition ➤
Last updated: 3 October 2023