Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 4)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a complaint against Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd, alleging that the company engaged in anti-competitive conduct by transitioning from standard to ultra-concentrated laundry detergent, and thereby substantially lessening competition in the market. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues in the case revolved around whether Colgate-Palmolive had contravened sections 44ZZRK and 45(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), which pertain to restrictive trade practices and cartel conduct, by entering into an arrangement or arriving at an understanding with other suppliers that had exclusionary provisions or aimed to lessen competition in the laundry detergent market.

The Court held that the ACCC had not met its burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that Colgate-Palmolive had entered into any such arrangement or arrived at any such understanding. The Court emphasised the importance of the Briginshaw standard, requiring a close examination and careful weighing of all the evidence and facts proved as a basis for inference, given the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences. The Court found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, did not prove that Colgate-Palmolive made an arrangement or arrived at an understanding that included the alleged provisions. Even if the ACCC had been able to prove such an arrangement or understanding, it still failed to prove that the provisions had the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market.

As a result, the Court dismissed the ACCC's application against Colgate-Palmolive, and ordered that the ACCC pay Colgate-Palmolive's costs. The Court also noted that the time within which the ACCC must file and serve any notice of appeal would commence to run from a specified date.