Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Maritime Union of Australia

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a complaint against the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), alleging breaches of sections 60 and 45DB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The case was before a Federal Court judge, who was required to determine whether the MUA, along with certain of its officials, had contravened these sections of the Act. The central issue was whether the MUA had engaged in conduct that constituted undue harassment and coercion, which would infringe section 60, and whether it had contravened section 45DB by engaging in conduct that was likely to mislead or create a false impression about the MUA’s intentions.

The court found that the MUA had indeed contravened both sections 60 and 45DB. In relation to section 60, the court held that the MUA's conduct amounted to undue harassment and coercion. This conclusion was based on the deliberate implementation of a policy that was likely to contravene the Act, as well as the fact that the MUA had forced the implementation of this policy. The court also found that certain officials of the MUA, including Mr Newlyn, were knowingly concerned in or party to these contraventions under section 75B of the Act.

In terms of section 45DB, the court accepted the admissions made by the MUA and the relevant officials that they had contravened this section. The court was satisfied that the agreed penalty of $75,000 for each contravention was appropriate, considering the deliberate nature of the conduct and the cooperation of the respondents. The court deferred making the final orders until any submissions from the parties on the form of orders and relief to be made in respect of the section 60 contraventions were heard.

The court’s reasoning emphasised the importance of resolving any ambiguity in the construction of section 60 in favour of the subject, given the potential for criminal prosecution and substantial fines. The court also considered the public interest in ensuring that the orders made were within the court's power and were appropriate. The court concluded that the agreed penalty and orders were generally appropriate and would be made, subject to any further submissions from the parties.