Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 2

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 2

TRADE PRACTICES – penalty – extent to which size of corporation and capacity to pay may be taken into account – relevance of parent company's resources in determining penalty to be imposed on subsidiary – role of parity principle. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 45(2), 76(1) Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (2001) ATPR ¶ 41-815, referred to. Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Limited (2001) ATPR ¶ 41-839, referred to. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 238, cited. NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285, applied. Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-076, cited. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2002] ATPR 41-851, cited. R v Tiddy (1969) SASR 575, cited. Pye Industries Sales Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1979) ATPR ¶ 40-124, cited. J McPhee & Son (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2000) 172 ALR 532, cited. Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, cited. Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, cited. K Yeung, "Quantifying Regulatory Penalties: Australian Competition Law Penalties in Perspective" (1999) 23 Melb ULR 440 D I Baker and B A Reeves, "The Paper Label Sentences: Critiques" (1977) 86 Yale LJ 619 John C Coffee, "'No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick' An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment" (1981) 79 Mich LR 386 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION V 367 of 2002 BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & MERKEL JJ MELBOURNE 14 FEBRUARY 2003