ANZ Found Not To Have Breached Price Fixing Provisions

Tuesday 19 November 2013 @ 10.12 a.m. | Trade & Commerce

The Federal Court has decided (18 November 2013) to dismiss proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleging that Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) had breached the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act), now Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA).

Background to the Case

The ACCC instituted proceedings against the ANZ Bank in August 2007 in the Brisbane Federal Court. The case was fully contested with a number challenges along the way, and the trial took place between 26 March 2012 and 5 April 2012.

The ACCC alleged that in 2004 the ANZ Bank sought to limit the amount of a refund a mortgage broker, Mortgage Refunds Pty Ltd, could provide to its customers in respect of arranging ANZ home loans, in contravention of s 45 of the Act (s 45 relates to Contracts, arrangements or understandings that restrict dealings or affect competition.

It was alleged that ANZ made and gave effect to an agreement where it would only allow Mortgage Refunds to continue to be accredited to offer ANZ mortgage products if it agreed to limit any refund it paid to its customers to $600, which would allow ANZ branches to match the deal if they chose to waive the ANZ loan establishment fee.

The ACCC alleged that this amounted to price fixing because ANZ and Mortgage Refunds were competitors in the market for the provision of loan arrangement services. The Court found that ANZ did not participate in a market for the provision of loan arrangement services and consequently that ANZ and Mortgage Refunds were not competitors in this market. As a result, ANZ’s conduct was found not to amount to a price fixing agreement.

ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said:

“Anti-competitive agreements between competitors are a priority for the ACCC because when businesses seek to fix, control or maintain the prices, rebates or discounts offered by their competitors, this can prevent or hinder competition, forcing up prices and reducing choices for consumers. In this case, the ACCC was concerned that the conduct affected price competition, which would ultimately impact upon consumers. It was especially significant that this conduct took place in the market for mortgage arrangement services, as home loans are a major cost for many people.”

The judgment is extensive, and the ACCC has said it will give it careful consideration.

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.

Sources:

Related Articles: