Australian competition cases

On 4 November 2016 the Court made consent orders dismissing proceedings against the second and third respondents and dismissing certain aspects of the claim against the first respondet, 'without adjudication on the merits'.

On 12 February 2018 the Court made orders that the CFMEU had:

• In relation to the Hawthorn site: 'engaged in conduct in concert with a Shop Steward which hindered or prevented the acquisition of concrete by S & A Paving from Alsafe (a Boral subsidiary) for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Boral, being conduct which was likely to have the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Boral, in contravention of s 45D(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ('the Act').' and
• In relation to the RIchmond Site: ' engaged in conduct in concert with a Shop Steward which hindered or prevented the acquisition of concrete by Oceania from Boral for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Boral, being conduct which was likely to have the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Boral, in contravention of s 45D(1) of the Act.'

CFMEU was ordered to pay a sum of $500k in respect of each contravention.

View court orders

ACCC v Cryosite Ltd [2019] FCA 116 (13 February 2019)
Cyrosite ordered to pay $1.05m in penalties for cartel conduct in contravention of sections 44ZZRJ and 44ZZRK of the CCA (as it was numbered at the relevant time).

See case page

Jacqueline Downes and Felicity McMahon, 'ACCC cartel action aganst Cryosite is a strong reminder of rules prohibiting "gun jumping"' (Allens >< Linklaters Client Update, 13 July 2018)

Elizabeth Avery, Charles Coorey, Jack Coles and Claire Green, 'First Australian M&A gun-jumping prosecution: ACCC v Cryosite Limited' (Gilbert + Tobin, 17 July 2018)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304

The Federal Court found that Yazaki Corporation engaged in collusive conduct with its competitor when supplying wire harnesses to Toyota in Australia. The conduct took place in 2003 and 2008 and breached the exclusionary conduct provisions of the CCA and the Competition Code of Victoria.

Interlocutory Hearing 31 May 2018
Judgment: Unlockd Limited v Google Asia Pacific Pte Limited [2018] FCA 826
Justice Moshinsky ordered that until 4pm on 29 June (or further order) the respondents shall not take any action to suspend supply of Google Play Store/Google AdMob service relating to Unlockd's Flybuy app in Australia

On 8 June 2018 (Diretions hearing) Justice Middleton made orders relating to interlocutory relief, security for costs and the trial timetable

On 27 June 2018 (Interlocutory hearing) Justice Middleton vacated orders 1 to 2 and 5 to 22 of the orders dated 8 June and set the matter down for directions hearing on 3 August 2018 at 10:15

Directions hearing 3 August 2018.

Administrative listing 24 September 2018.

Administrative listing 12 October 2018.

Administrative listing 31 October 2018.

Colin Kruger, 'Start-up Unlockd puts off legal action in Australia against Google' (SMH, 31 October 2018)

Misa Han, 'Unlockd will 'cease to exist' if Google blocks the app' (AFR, 3 June 2018)

Cat Fredenburgh 'Unlockd wins bid to stop Google blocking app in Australia' (Lawyerly, 31 May 2018)