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

iStock  Construction dpi
Call me? Care is required when calling on a bond
In the recent High Court decision Hawkins Ltd v Elizabeth Properties Ltd, Hawkins was successful in preventing EPL from calling on a $3m bond pending determination of a dispute principally over the ap...
10.04.2024
HH News NZS  Release
What You Need to Know About the New NZS3910:2023
The new NZS3910:2023 (conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction) was released by Standards New Zealand in December 2024 (see our article here).  It is now gaining relevan...
10.04.2024 Posted in Construction
Money stack black and white
Income is classified as relationship property – surprised?
For all couples, embarking on the journey of building a life together involves not only love and commitment but also financial considerations.  As you navigate through shared finances, it’s imp...
26.03.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
Forestry Unsplash ruben hanssen wl ylTCM
Forestry: Regulatory Roundup March 2024
The challenging economic environment for New Zealand’s forestry industry continues, with China’s demand for our logs remaining subdued. Moreover, in addition to the change in Government, t...
25.03.2024 Posted in Forestry & Property
solar
OIO Spotlight: Solar projects, exempted interests and farmland considerations
As New Zealand renewable energy developments continue to attract interest from global investors, we take a look at some recent approaches of the Overseas Investment Office in assessing consent require...
BCC Trade Credit v Thera Agri Capital: Policyholder Successful Against Credit Insurer in Australian Court of Appeal Decision
When applying for trade credit insurance, a prospective insured will typically provide information on the financing arrangements that will form the basis of cover. Where there is deviation from these ...
05.03.2024 Posted in Insurance & Trade and Transport
iStock
Parker v Magnum Hire: A new era of personal grievance remedies awarded in the Employment Relations Authority?
If you heard a sudden loud noise last week – no it wasn’t a jet plane flying overhead, it was the gasp of employment lawyers across New Zealand when the Employment Relations Authority published it...
26.02.2024 Posted in Employment
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.