Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged that ANZ engaged in conduct that had the purpose or effect of fixing a rebate. The dispute centred on whether ANZ's actions in writing to a finance aggregator to prevent a mortgage broker, Mortgage Refunds Pty Ltd, from limiting the amount of refunds offered on ANZ's loans had the effect of lessening competition between ANZ and mortgage brokers. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether ANZ's mortgage division was in competition with mortgage brokers and whether ANZ's actions constituted an anti-competitive practice under the Australian Competition and Consumer Act.

The legal issues before the court involved whether ANZ and mortgage brokers were in the same market and provided similar services, thus competing in the same market. The court considered the hypothetical monopolist test to assess whether ANZ and mortgage brokers engaged in rivalrous behaviour and whether they perceived themselves as competitors. The court examined the nature of the mortgage broking business model and the relationship between ANZ and mortgage brokers, including ANZ's provision of training and accreditation to brokers and the acceptance of loan applications from brokers.

The court concluded that ANZ branches and franchisees did not participate in any market where brokers provided loan arrangement services. The court found that ANZ was not in competition with Mortgage Refunds, as there was little evidence of rivalrous conduct. The court also noted that ANZ did not want to offend the brokers and that talk of competition was not translated into action. The court found that ANZ's actions did not lessen competition between ANZ and mortgage brokers, and therefore ANZ was not engaged in conduct that violated competition laws.

The court dismissed the application by the ACCC, stating that any party requiring further findings of fact must submit a list of proposed findings and relevant evidence within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. The opposing party must respond within another 14 days, and the documents must be filed within a further seven days. The court reserved the matter of costs for later determination.