Interviews
Woolworths penalised $7 mn for anticompetitive liquor deals
29 Dec '06
2 min read
Justice Allsop of the Federal Court today imposed pecuniary penalties totalling $7million on Woolworths Limited for entering into and giving effect to illegal anticompetitive agreements with small business liquor licence applicants.
On 27 June 2003, the ACCC instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Woolworths and Liquorland, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coles Group Limited, for entering into and giving effect to allegedly anticompetitive agreements.
The ACCC alleged that the conduct arose in circumstances where Woolworths and Liquorland objected to certain liquor licence applications and then proposed restrictive agreements in return for withdrawing their objections.
The restrictive agreements contained conditions such as the following:
Preventing liquor licence applicants from selling packaged takeaway liquor from their premises, restricting and preventing liquor licence applicants from opening a dedicated bottleshop or establishing a separate drive-through bottleshop
restricting and preventing liquor licence applicants from advertising or conducting promotions for the sale of packaged takeaway liquor over the counter to consumers, preventing liquor licence applicants from expanding the size of their licensed premises.
And limiting the amount of liquor which liquor licence applicants could keep on their premises to meet consumer demand.
On 31 May 2005, Liquorland admitted that it had entered into illegal agreements with five applicants for liquor licences. Liquorland was subsequently penalised $4.75 million by Justice Gyles of the Federal Court for these contraventions. The case against Woolworths continued before Justice Allsop.
On 27 June 2003, the ACCC instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Woolworths and Liquorland, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coles Group Limited, for entering into and giving effect to allegedly anticompetitive agreements.
The ACCC alleged that the conduct arose in circumstances where Woolworths and Liquorland objected to certain liquor licence applications and then proposed restrictive agreements in return for withdrawing their objections.
The restrictive agreements contained conditions such as the following:
Preventing liquor licence applicants from selling packaged takeaway liquor from their premises, restricting and preventing liquor licence applicants from opening a dedicated bottleshop or establishing a separate drive-through bottleshop
restricting and preventing liquor licence applicants from advertising or conducting promotions for the sale of packaged takeaway liquor over the counter to consumers, preventing liquor licence applicants from expanding the size of their licensed premises.
And limiting the amount of liquor which liquor licence applicants could keep on their premises to meet consumer demand.
On 31 May 2005, Liquorland admitted that it had entered into illegal agreements with five applicants for liquor licences. Liquorland was subsequently penalised $4.75 million by Justice Gyles of the Federal Court for these contraventions. The case against Woolworths continued before Justice Allsop.
Popular News
Leave your Comments
Editor’s Pick
Dr. Michael Duetsch & Man Woo Lee
UPM Biochemicals and Dongsung Chemical
Alex and Zofia Torun-Shaw
Brand - Laird Utility
Esteemed Clients
-Ltd..jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Thermore (Far East) Ltd.")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSllC Ltd)")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Taiwan Textile Federation (TTF)")
