GEA Milfos International Limited (Milfos) has been ordered to pay a penalty of $825,000 in the Auckland High Court after
admitting it engaged in price-fixing with competitor Dairy Automation Limited (DAL) between at least October 2012 and
September 2014. It has also agreed to pay the Commission $100,000 in costs.
Milfos and DAL provided technology solutions for dairy farmers and competed in the supply, installation, and maintenance
of both milk sensors and herd management systems used in the milking process. Milfos did not manufacture its own milk
sensor technology, but instead bought milk sensors from DAL to supply farmers.
Milfos and DAL discussed the possibility of Milfos becoming the exclusive retailer of DAL’s milk sensor products. This
arrangement was never entered into. However, in the course of those discussions, Milfos and DAL agreed to use a shared
pricing spreadsheet for customer quotes. This fixed prices for the milk sensor products.
In his judgment, Justice Edwin Wylie noted that the fact the conduct was in anticipation of a legitimate exclusive
supply arrangement was not a defence. Milfos and DAL were competing in a market that was important to the New Zealand
dairy industry, and one which had limited providers for farmers to choose from. Further, he noted the conduct was
undertaken by senior employees and the damage caused was difficult to quantify.
“In my view, Milfos’ conduct was certainly careless – even grossly careless,” Justice Wylie said.
“While Milfos and [DAL] did not set out to enter into an illegal arrangement or understanding, they nevertheless engaged
in conduct that gave them an improper advantage over their customers and competitors.”
Commission Chair Anna Rawlings said the case served as a strong reminder to businesses that they must be mindful of
agreeing prices with a distributor that competes with them in the retail market.
“The Court imposes significant penalties on unlawful agreements between competitors because they have the potential to
cause serious harm. Companies should seek legal advice before discussing retail prices with a distributor that competes
with them to sell the same products direct to consumers, to ensure they don’t put themselves at risk of breaching the
Commerce Act,” Ms Rawlings said.
Milfos cooperated with the Commission’s investigation and acknowledged its conduct breached the Commerce Act.
A copy of the High Court judgment is available on the Commission’s case register.