What do you know about a ‘smoking gun’?

Published On 05/06/2018 | By Tamara Hunter | Litigation

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has handed down its long-awaited decision in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s appeal of the Pfizer case.  The case concerns when the testimonial evidence of managers responsible for developing a competitive strategy will overrule anti-competitive statements in ‘smoking gun’ documents.

The Full Court dismissed the ACCC’s appeal, finding that Pfizer had not misused its substantial market power for an anti-competitive purpose, and had not engaged in exclusive dealing conduct.

The ACCC has said that it is carefully considering the judgment.  The ACCC has 28 days from the date of the judgment to seek leave to appeal to the High Court.

How does the Court treat ‘smoking gun’ documents v the ‘final word’ of management?  Read more via our Alert written by Sharon Henrick and Rebecca Prior.

Image credit: Charles Knowles | Flickr |CC2.0 | Remixed to B&W and resized

Like this post? Share it... Email this to someone
Print this page
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

About The Author

is a Special Counsel in the competition litigation group at King & Wood Mallesons. Tamara has advised on the competition law aspects of commercial transactions and disputes and assisted clients to respond to investigations by the ACCC and other regulators in the Asia Pacific region. In her spare time, Tamara enjoys planning holidays almost more than she enjoys going on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

4 − 4 =