23.11.2020

Court of Appeal cuts fine for Steel & Tube’s breaches of the Fair Trading Act 

The Court of Appeal in Commerce Commission v Steel & Tube Holdings Limited [2020] NZCA 549 has set aside last year’s High Court decision under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) where it imposed a (record-high) fine of $2 million on NZX-listed Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (Steel & Tube). 

Steel & Tube pleaded guilty to FTA charges brought by the Commerce Commission after falsely representing that seismic-mesh had been tested according to the required standards for seismic grade quality (the Standard) when in fact, independent testing of the mesh had ended in 2011.  Steel & Tube sold approximately 480,000 sheets of mesh that it represented as being compliant with the Standard between 2012 – 2016.

The High Court characterised Steel & Tube’s omission as “gross carelessness” which weighed in favour of a starting point of $3.8 million.  On the High Court’s analysis, the starting point for FTA penalties should be determined with adjustments to be made to take into account specific additional aggravating or mitigating factors.  Having applied this approach, the High Court increased the District Court fine from $1.9 million to $2 million. 

The Court of Appeal agreed that the offending was serious because of “the vital importance of compliance with the [S]tandard, the absence of any adequate excuse, and the large scale and long duration of the offending”.  However, it found that the High Court sentence was “manifestly excessive” in the circumstances. 

The Court of Appeal placed relatively more weight on the fact that Steel & Tube did not intend to mislead and deceive; it believed the mesh did comply and that its testing processes were equivalent or superior to the Standard.  Steel & Tube also withdrew the mesh from the market as soon as it was put on notice that its testing processes did not comply. 

The Court of Appeal consequently adopted a lower starting point of $2.4 million taking into account all aggravating and mitigating features of Steel & Tube’s offending.  The penalty was distributed among the FTA charges as a proportion of the maximum penalty, totalling fines of $1.56 million.    

Despite the fact the fine payable was reduced by $449,280, the Steel & Tube saga serves as a reminder to all businesses that when it comes to strict liability offences under the FTA, being able to demonstrate an active approach to compliance is important to mitigating exposure to substantial penalties.  It is essential that there is continuous monitoring of representations made, and robust systems in place to ensure compliance.

If you have any questions about Fair Trading Act 1986 compliance, please get in touch with our Disputes or Business Advice teams or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Contractors, Caveats, and Retention of Title clauses
The High Court in Development Construction Company Ltd v Mackenzie [2021] NZHC 546 has confirmed  that retention of title (RoT) clauses do not provide contractors with a caveatable interest. This dec...
How to break up with a suspected money launderer: High Court Guidance
The High Court has provided guidance on how to end a business relationship with a suspected money launderer.
15.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Adjudication When In Administration
In Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd the High Court highlighted the interplay between insolvency and construction adjudication issues.
15.04.2021 Posted in Construction
What happens if my employee refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccination?
While there are enough COVID-19 vaccinations to inoculate each New Zealander, it has been reported that some ‘frontline’ workers have refused to get vaccinated, or have failed to attend vaccinatio...
14.04.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->