The High Court of Australia has dismissed an application for special leave to appeal by electrical cable manufacturer Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (“Prysmian”) following a decision of the Full Federal Court which upheld the trial judge’s finding that the company had engaged in cartel conduct in the supply of high voltage land cables.
Concerned with the potential for price fixing and exclusionary arrangements in contravention of provisions of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the “ACCC”) instituted proceedings against Nexans SA, Prysmian and Viscas Corporation.
The conduct in question formed part of an over-arching arrangement or understanding between a group of European and Japanese cable suppliers which provided for the allocation of projects around the world.
Prysmian was seeking special leave to appeal against a decision handed down by the Full Federal Court in March 2018 [see Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. v ACCC  FCAFC 30 (13 March 2018)].
The March 2018 decision upheld the trial judge’s finding that Prysmian had engaged in cartel conduct relating to the supply of high voltage land cables and accessories to a Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme Project in 2003.
For further information into the background of this matter, see TimeBase’s previous articles.
In afrom the competition regulator, the ACCC alleges that Prysmian had entered into and given effect to, agreements with competitors, which involved price guidance and project allocation between competing companies.
Commenting on the latest High Court action, ACCC Chair Rod Sims said:
The time-line for action brought against Prysmian by the ACCC is as follows:
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 12)  FCA 822 (20 July 2018)
ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 13)  FCA 851 (28 July 2017)
Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. v ACCC  FCAFC 30 (13 March 2018)
FREE legislation news, delivered weekly.
Sign up now.#WeLoveLegislation Tweets
NEW information resources - great for training.