Appeal by ACCC dismissed on 31 July 2015 (detail to follow)

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.

Note: compare the decision in ACCC v Flight Centre.

See also Flight Centre

On the decision at first instance

• Andrew Christopher and Thea Fabricius, 'In competition with each other? Implications of the apparently divergent outcomes in Flight Centre and ANZ' (2015) 23(1) Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law 6
• Stephen Corones, 'Agents as intermediaries: when to do they compete with their suppliers?' (2014) 42(1) ABLR 50-55
• Paul McLachlan, 'Not All Benefits are Services - Case Note; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd' (2014) 22(1) AJCCL 61
• Rachel Trindade, Alexandra Merrett and Rhonda Smith, '2013: the year of waiting patiently' (The State of Competition, Issue 15 (Dec 2013))

ACCC releases

• ACCC, 'ACCC unsuccessful in appeal from judgment dismissing price fixing allegations against ANZ' (ACCC Media Release, 31 July 2015)
• ACCC, ACCC appeals ANZ Bank decision (ACCC Media Release, 10 December 2013)
• ACCC, ANZ found not to have breached price fixing provisions (ACCC Media Release (18 November 2013))

On appeal decision

Gilbert + Tobin

Gilbert+Tobin, 'Federal Court green lights dual distribution models: wins for Flight Centre and ANZ against ACCC price fixing allegations' (31 July 2015)

On decision at first instance

Clayton Utz

Alexia Smyth-Kirk and Michael Corrigan, 'Court dismisses ACCC's price fixing case against ANZ' (Clayton Utz Insights, 5 December 2013)

Gilbert + Tobin

Luke Woodward, Elizabeth Avery, Simon Snow, Charles Coorey and Genevieve Rahman, 'Dual distribution models at a crossroad: where do the ANZ and Flight Centre cases leave us?' (Glibert + Tobin update, December 2013)

On appeal decision

• Jamie Freed, 'ACCC loss in Flight Centre, ANZ case clarifies price-fixing rules' (SMH, 3 August 2015) (also published in AFR here)
• John Durie, 'Flight Centre wins price-fixing appeal against ACCC' (The Australian, 31 July 2015)
• John Durie and Eric George, 'ACCC setbacks could set a significant precedent' (Business Spectator, 31 July 2015) (video)

Appeal

ACCC v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 103 (31 July 2015) (Federal Court)

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

ACCC v ANZ Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 (AustLII)

ACCC v ANZ Ltd [2013] FCA 1206 (Jade)