Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation (No 2)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought an action against Yazaki Corporation (Yazaki) and another entity (AAPL) for alleged contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Competition Code of Victoria. Yazaki, a Japanese corporation, had an Australian subsidiary, which was wholly owned. The dispute centred on whether Yazaki was carrying on business in Australia and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Victorian court. Additionally, the ACCC alleged that Yazaki and AAPL had entered into an overarching cartel agreement and two separate agreements that contained exclusionary and price-controlling provisions, and that Yazaki's Australian subsidiary had given effect to these agreements.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether Yazaki was carrying on business in Australia, whether the alleged agreements were valid under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Competition Code of Victoria, and whether Yazaki had given effect to these agreements through its Australian subsidiary. The court had to determine the applicability of the exclusionary and price-controlling provisions within the agreements and whether the acts of omission by Yazaki and its subsidiary could be considered as giving effect to these agreements.

The court found that Yazaki was indeed carrying on business in Australia and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The court held that Yazaki contravened the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Competition Code of Victoria by making and giving effect to the overarching cartel agreement and the two separate agreements. The Australian subsidiary also contravened the Act and the Code by making and giving effect to an agreement in Australia. The court ruled that acts of omission, such as not disclosing the existence of agreements and not competing, could constitute giving effect to a prohibited agreement. The evidence presented by the ACCC, including affidavits and witness statements, was deemed admissible and sufficient to establish the contraventions.

In conclusion, the court determined that Yazaki had contravened the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Competition Code of Victoria by making and giving effect to the alleged agreements. The proceeding was adjourned to allow for the making of orders and directions concerning relief, with further directions to be provided by the court.