By and -

Snapshot

  • The recent judgment in BlueScope Steel considers a rarely litigated provision of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), being s 76(1)(d) which concerns ‘attempts to induce’ a contravention.
  • BlueScope Steel is likely to be relied upon by the ACCC in prosecuting future ‘attempts to induce’ cases.
  • The decision should also be considered in light of the recent and significant increase in civil penalties applicable to contraventions of the CCA.

The Federal Court’s recent decision in ACCC v BlueScope Steel Limited (No 5) [2022] FCA 1475 (‘BlueScope Steel’) considers what is required to establish an ‘attempt to induce’ a cartel arrangement or understanding. The decision also provides a new interpretation of existing law that the ACCC is likely to rely on to prosecute ‘attempts to induce’ cartel conduct in the future.

Attempted cartel conduct – overview

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (‘CCA’) prohibits a corporation or person from making a contract, arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision, or giving effect to such a cartel provision (ss 45AJ and 45AK CCA (civil) and ss 45AF and 45AG CCA (criminal)).

It is also a breach of the CCA to attempt this conduct. Two provisions of the CCA deal with attempts in respect of the civil cartel prohibitions:

  • s 76(1)(b): where a person ‘has attempted to contravene such a provision’; and
  • s 76(1)(d): where a person has ‘attempted to induce, a person, whether by threats or promises or otherwise to contravene such a provision’.

Section 79 of the CCA prohibits criminal attempts.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more