331:
cards) on Mpos EFTPOS equipment. It was found that: "With respect to both refusals, Cabcharge acknowledges that although there would have been time and costs involved in developing appropriate interfaces, there was no technical reason that would prevent any electronic taxi-specific payment product from being processed by any EFTPOS terminal as long as that taxi-specific instrument and the relevant EFTPOS terminals complied with all relevant banking/financial industry protocols, including security protocols."
123:
22:
409:
279:
Section 46 of the TPA was amended numerous times since
September 2007 to strengthen the ACCC's ability to successfully bring proceedings for alleged contraventions. For example, in September 2007, a sub-section 46(1AA) was introduced into the TPA to prohibit corporations with substantial market share
288:
purposes referred to above. In
November 2008, the TPA was amended again to make clear the circumstances when corporations had 'taken advantage' of their market power. This change sought to deal with the evidentiary difficulties the regulator encountered in establishing this element in earlier cases.
252:
Cabcharge provides various products and services in
Australia and overseas, predominantly to taxi drivers, owners and networks (the firms that provide booking and dispatch services to drivers and owners). The services that Cabcharge provide include non-cash payment processing systems for taxi fares,
343:
Between
September 2004 and October 2007 Cabcharge acquired taximeters at a cost of $ 250 per meter. Of these, Cabcharge supplied approximately 727 units free of charge and approximately 5613 units at an invoiced price of $ 100 (of which it did not obtain any payment for approximately 758 units). At
316:
On 24 September 2010, Justice
Finkelstein approved the settlement of the action and declared that Cabcharge had breached the TPA by taking advantage of its substantial degree of power in the Australian markets for the supply of services to enable non-cash payments for taxi fares and charges by taxi
239:
In
September 2010, to settle the action, Cabcharge admitted a number of contraventions of TPA and the Federal Court imposed a fine of $ 15 million ($ 14 million in civil penalties and $ 1 million in costs), the highest ever penalty imposed for misuse of market power. The judgement was delivered by
351:
In addition, Cabcharge supplied meter updates free to networks and operators, notwithstanding that it incurred costs of around $ 75,000 to supply these updates. At the time its competitors charged $ 70 to $ 110 plus GST per update. Cabcharge funded its losses from profits it made from its payment
330:
It was found that since 2005 Cabcharge had unreasonably refused to deal with a potential competitor (namely Travel Tab which had changed its name to Mpos in
January 2007) in the payments and instruments markets by refusing to allow Travel Tab/MPos to process Cabcharge instruments (e.g., Cabcharge
355:
It was found that
Cabcharge took advantage of the substantial degree of power it had in the payment processing market for the purposes of: (1) affecting the profitability of other suppliers of meters and updates; (2) ensuring that other suppliers of meters and updates could not match or be price
256:
The ACCC began proceedings in June 2009 in the
Federal Court against Cabcharge. The ACCC action alleged that Cabcharge had breached section 46 of the Trade Practices Act (TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged
334:
It was found that: "Cabcharge’s refusals were for the purpose of preventing Travel Tab/MPos from processing
Cabcharge instruments electronically and resulted in Cabcharge’s payment processing system remaining the only system that processed Cabcharge’s instruments electronically."
261:
by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in refusing to deal with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through EFTPOS terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taximeters and meter updates at below actual cost or at no cost.
293:
for each act or omission contravening the TPA. Civil penalties can now be imposed up to the greater of $ 10 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained from the misconduct, or 10% of the annual Australian turnover of the company involved.
253:
payment processing systems for taxis and provision of taxi meters. The company holds a dominant market position in these services across Australia as it supplies almost 97% of Australian taxis with its electronic payment system.
307:
To settle the proceedings, Cabcharge admitted to three contraventions of the TPA. The company agreed to the issue by the court of declarations, compliance orders, civil penalties of $ 14 million and costs of $ 1 million.
348:. Cabcharge installed 197 meters free of charge at an estimated cost of $ 120 to $ 160 per installation. From 9 November 2007, it sold meters at a retail price of $ 250.
213:
32:
442:
220:. In June 2009, the ACCC began proceedings in the Federal Court against Cabcharge alleging that it had breached section 46 of the Commonwealth
90:
62:
345:
69:
356:
competitive with Cabcharge; and (3) ensuring that alternative suppliers did not commence supplying electronic processing services.
76:
447:
47:
58:
224:(TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged
265:
At the relevant date, to breach Section 46 of the TPA, a corporation must have misused its substantial market power to:
236:
terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taxi meters and fare updates at below actual cost or at no cost.
403:
391:
209:
133:
452:
437:
432:
83:
284:. Predatory pricing occurs when a company sets its prices below cost for a sustained period for one of the
317:
passengers and non-cash instruments that could be used only for the payment of taxi fares and charges.
39:
241:
221:
195:
275:
deter or prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that market or any other market.
281:
258:
225:
387:
161:
399:
285:
180:
122:
229:
426:
413:
290:
217:
21:
232:
with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through
144:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
289:
Since January 2007, the courts have also been given power to impose a
272:
prevent the entry of a person into that market or any other market; or
233:
412:
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
344:
the time its competitors sold meters for between $ 430–550 plus
15:
43:
228:by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in
191:
186:
172:
167:
157:
149:
139:
129:
115:
214:Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
269:eliminate or substantially damage a competitor
8:
48:introducing citations to additional sources
121:
112:
379:
377:
375:
373:
371:
369:
38:Relevant discussion may be found on the
365:
396:ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd (No 2)
177:ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd (No 2)
7:
14:
443:Federal Court of Australia cases
407:
59:"ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd"
31:relies largely or entirely on a
20:
384:ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
205:ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
116:ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
1:
469:
210:Federal Court of Australia
208:is a 2010 decision of the
134:Federal Court of Australia
120:
388:[2010] FCA 1261
162:[2010] FCA 1261
448:2010 in Australian law
400:[2010] FCA 837
181:[2010] FCA 837
244:on 17 November 2010.
352:processing systems.
312:Cabcharge settlement
303:Cabcharge admissions
44:improve this article
242:Raymond Finkelstein
222:Trade Practices Act
339:Predatory pricing
282:predatory pricing
280:from engaging in
259:predatory pricing
226:predatory pricing
201:
200:
173:Subsequent action
109:
108:
94:
460:
453:2010 in case law
438:Private case law
417:
411:
410:
381:
286:anti-competitive
230:refusing to deal
187:Court membership
153:17 November 2010
125:
113:
104:
101:
95:
93:
52:
24:
16:
468:
467:
463:
462:
461:
459:
458:
457:
433:Competition law
423:
422:
421:
420:
408:
382:
367:
362:
341:
328:
326:Refusal to deal
323:
314:
305:
300:
250:
216:(ACCC) against
212:brought by the
105:
99:
96:
53:
51:
37:
25:
12:
11:
5:
466:
464:
456:
455:
450:
445:
440:
435:
425:
424:
419:
418:
364:
363:
361:
358:
340:
337:
327:
324:
322:
319:
313:
310:
304:
301:
299:
296:
277:
276:
273:
270:
249:
246:
199:
198:
193:
189:
188:
184:
183:
174:
170:
169:
165:
164:
159:
155:
154:
151:
147:
146:
141:
140:Full case name
137:
136:
131:
127:
126:
118:
117:
107:
106:
42:. Please help
28:
26:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
465:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
434:
431:
430:
428:
415:
414:public domain
406:(Australia).
405:
404:Federal Court
401:
397:
394:(Australia);
393:
392:Federal Court
389:
385:
380:
378:
376:
374:
372:
370:
366:
359:
357:
353:
349:
347:
338:
336:
332:
325:
320:
318:
311:
309:
302:
297:
295:
292:
291:civil penalty
287:
283:
274:
271:
268:
267:
266:
263:
260:
254:
247:
245:
243:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
197:
196:Finkelstein J
194:
192:Judge sitting
190:
185:
182:
178:
175:
171:
166:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
132:
128:
124:
119:
114:
111:
103:
100:November 2016
92:
89:
85:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68:
64:
61: –
60:
56:
55:Find sources:
49:
45:
41:
35:
34:
33:single source
29:This article
27:
23:
18:
17:
395:
383:
354:
350:
342:
333:
329:
315:
306:
278:
264:
255:
251:
238:
204:
203:
202:
176:
168:Case history
143:
110:
97:
87:
80:
73:
66:
54:
30:
427:Categories
360:References
298:Resolution
248:Background
70:newspapers
321:Judgement
218:Cabcharge
40:talk page
240:Justice
158:Citation
150:Decided
84:scholar
234:EFTPOS
86:
79:
72:
65:
57:
398:
386:
179:
130:Court
91:JSTOR
77:books
63:news
346:GST
46:by
429::
402:,
390:,
368:^
416:.
102:)
98:(
88:·
81:·
74:·
67:·
50:.
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
