Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Medibank Private Limited [2020] FCA 1030 File number: VID 942 of 2019
Judge: ANDERSON J
Date of judgment: 16 July 2020
Date of publication of reasons: 22 July 2020
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – pecuniary penalties – relevant matters to be considered – admitted contraventions of ss 18 and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law CONSUMER LAW – pecuniary penalties – statement of agreed facts and admissions – joint submissions as to quantum of pecuniary penalty – appropriateness of proposed pecuniary penalty Held: The Respondent paying a pecuniary penalty of $5 million is appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of this proceeding
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2, ss 18, 29(1)(m), 228(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 21
Cases cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3; (2018) 262 CLR 157 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 399; (2015) 146 ALD 385 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] FCA 1516; (2016) 118 ACSR 124 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets [2014] FCA 1405 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 330; (2015) 327 ALR 540 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181; (2016) 340 ALR 25 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 450; (1997) 145 ALR 36 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 761; (2011) 282 ALR 246 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2010] FCA 790; (2010) 188 FCR 238 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54; (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft [2019] FCA 2166 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Limited [2016] FCA 44 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73; (2018) 262 FCR 243 Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39; (2010) 269 ALR 1 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Limited (1972) 127 CLR 421 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134; (1996) 71 FCR 285 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 20; (2012) 287 ALR 249 TPG Internet Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 190; (2012) 210 FCR 277 Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 521; (1991) ATPR 41-076
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate