Case: Australian Competition &amp; Consumer Commission v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085
Outcome: cited
That question was answered: " No, but the reasons in NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134 ; (1996) 71 FCR 285 disclose no error of principle ". The Full Court reviewed the authorities and observed: [51] The following propositions emerge from the reasoning in NW Frozen Foods: (i) It is the responsibility of the Court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed under s 76 of the TP Act in respect of a contravention of the TP Act. (ii) Determining the quantum of a penalty is not an exact science. Within a permissible range, the courts have acknowledged that a particular figure cannot necessarily be said to be more appropriate than another. (iii) There is a public interest in promoting settlement of litigation, particularly where it is likely to be lengthy. Accordingly, when the regulator and contravenor have reached agreement, they may present to the Court a statement of facts and opinions as to the effect of those facts, together with joint submissions as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. (iv) The view of the regulator, as a specialist body, is a relevant, but not determinative consideration on the question of penalty. In particular, the views of the regulator on matters within its expertise (such as the ACCC's views as to the deterrent effect of a proposed penalty in a given market) will usually be given greater weight than its views on more "subjective" matters. (v) In determining whether the proposed penalty is appropriate, the Court examines all the circumstances of the case. Where the parties have put forward an agreed statement of facts, the Court may act on that statement if it is appropriate to do so. (vi) Where the parties have jointly proposed a penalty, it will not be useful to investigate whether the Court would have arrived at that precise figure in the absence of agreement. The question is whether that figure is, in the Court's view, appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In answering that question, the Court will not reject the agreed figure simply because it would have been disposed to select some other figure. It will be appropriate if within the permissible range. Five further points were there made by their Honours, being: [53] First, the rationale for giving weight to a joint submission on penalty is said by the Court to be the savings in resources for the regulator and the Court, as well as the likelihood that a negotiated resolution will include measures designed to promote competition. As Jeremy Thorpe points out, a related advantage is that the savings in resources can be used by the regulator to increase the likelihood that other contraveners will be detected and brought before the courts. This has the effect of increasing deterrence which is one of the principal justifications, if not the only justification for imposing civil penalties under the TP Act or the Sites Act: J Thorpe, "Determining the Appropriate Role for Charge Bargaining in Pt IV of the Trade Practices Act" (1996) 4 Comp &amp; Cons LJ 69, at 72 74. ... [54] Secondly, the sixth proposition drawn from the reasoning in NW Frozen Foods does not mean, in our opinion, that the Court must commence its reasoning with the proposed penalty and limit itself to considering whether that penalty is within the permissible range. A Court may wish to take that approach. However, it is open to a Court, consistently with the reasoning in NW Frozen Foods, first to address the appropriate range of penalties independently of the parties' proposed figure and then, having made that judgment, determine whether the prepared penalty falls within the range. [55] Thirdly, as has been noted, the appellant in NW Frozen Foods admitted contravening the TP Act and had reached agreement with the ACCC upon the facts to be put before the Court. There was no suggestion that the admissions or statement had been tailored or modified to reflect the difficulties faced by the ACCC in proving its case. The Full Court therefore acted on the basis of clear admissions and a detailed statement of agreed facts setting out how the contraventions had occurred. ... [56] Fourthly, as the Full Court in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ithaca Ice Works Pty Ltd [2002] ATPR 41-851 , has pointed out, the regulator should always explain to the Court the process of reasoning that justifies a discounted penalty. ... ... [58] Fifthly, there is nothing in NW Frozen Foods that is inconsistent with any of the following propositions: (i) The Court, if it considers that the evidence or information before it is inadequate to form a view as to whether the proposed penalty is appropriate, may request the parties to provide additional evidence or information or verify the information provided. If they do not provide the information or verification requested, the Court may well not be satisfied that the proposed penalty is within the range. (ii) If the absence of a contradictor inhibits the Court in the performance of its duties under s 76 of the TP Act, s 13 of the Sites Act, or similar legislation, it may seek the assistance of an amicus curiae or of an individual or body prepared to act as an intervenor under FCR, O 6 r 17. (iii) If the Court is disposed not to impose the penalty proposed by the parties, it may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, for each of them to be given the opportunity to withdraw consent to the proposed orders and for the matter to proceed as a contested hearing. See: Australian Competition &amp; Consumer Commission v Admiral Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1085 at [13] [18] per Nicholson J. Most recently, it has been said that the " upshot of the authorities is that the Court should not depart lightly from a joint position put forward by the parties. The inquiry to be undertaken is not whether the Court would have arrived at the same figure as the parties, but whether the proposal fixes an appropriate amount 'within the permissible range' of penalties that might properly be imposed ": Australian Competition &amp; Consumer Commission v Oobi Baby Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1488 at [9] per Finkelstein J. See also: Beaton-Wells C, 'Judicial Scrutiny of Penalty Agreements to Increase' (2005) 13 TPLJ 59.