Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (No 4)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sought to enforce the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) against Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (Prysmian) and Nexans Australia Pty Ltd (Nexans). The ACCC sought to establish that Prysmian had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, specifically, that Prysmian had given effect to the Snowy Hydro Agreement by providing price guidance and submitting a tender. The dispute was before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues involved whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether the ACCC had established a prima facie case for the relief it sought. Another issue was whether the ACCC was required to demonstrate a prima facie case for all or only some of the grounds for relief. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether Nexans was carrying on business in Australia and whether hearsay evidence was admissible under section 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the matter and that the ACCC had established a prima facie case that Prysmian had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. The Court also found that the ACCC only needed to establish a prima facie case for some of the grounds for relief, not all. The Court further found that Nexans was carrying on business in Australia and that the hearsay evidence was admissible under section 75 of the Evidence Act. The Court allowed the ACCC to reopen its case to tender additional evidence and dismissed Prysmian and Nexans' applications to set aside service of the originating process. The Court ordered Prysmian and Nexans to pay the ACCC's costs.