Catchwords:

COMPETITION – appeals from orders made as to liability for attempts to induce a corporation to arrive at an understanding containing a cartel provision, contravening ss 445ZZRJ and s 76(1)(d) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (the Act) – where primary judge found appellants attempted to induce nine counterparties to arrive at an understanding – where understandings found to contain a provision relating to a base or floor price for flat steel products, or implementing a price increase for those products – where appellants alleged they had not sought commitments to course of action from counterparties – whether commitment necessary for an understanding or an attempt to induce an understanding – where appellant claimed no intention to induce an understanding – whether primary judge erred in identifying relevant intention – where appellants claimed that inducements identified by primary judge were based on conduct which had already occurred – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellants intended to attempt to induce understandings containing cartel provisions – whether the primary judge erred in finding attempts to induce understandings within the meaning of s 44ZZRJ of the Act – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the appellants’ conduct was capable of assent and/or immediately connected, or proximate, to an attempt to induce an understanding – whether the respondent was precluded by s 77(2) of the Act from seeking a pecuniary penalty in respect of the first appellant – whether the Court has the power to make a non-indemnification order – appeals dismissed