The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will not appeal the Geelong petrol decision.
"The ACCC has carefully considered the lengthy Federal Court judgment of 29 May 2007 in which Justice Gray dismissed the ACCC's allegations of price-fixing in the Geelong petrol market during 1999 and 2000", ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said.
"As a result of a previous Full Federal Court of Australia appeal, a high evidentiary burden was set in cases which involve allegations of numerous price-fixing agreements, or understandings, reached informally over a long time. In particular, it must be shown that the parties to an alleged price-fixing arrangement or understanding are committed or morally bound to the agreement.
"In the Geelong case, the court found that it could not infer a sufficient level of commitment by the parties to a price-fix. The judge himself observed that whether or not such communications between competitors amount to an understanding would always be a difficult line to draw."
Mr Samuel said there was no dispute by many of the respondents that they regularly communicated with each other about petrol prices.
"What was disputed was whether these communications amounted to an 'arrangement or understanding' about how the parties would price their petrol.
"A factor in considering an appeal was that the ACCC had to consider if the factual findings made by the trial judge could be shown to be in error.
"The ACCC had witness statements, admissions by a number of respondents that they had reached understandings in breach of the Trade Practices Act, and extensive petrol price movements and telephone call records.
"However, taking into account the oral evidence of witnesses, the judge found that the parties were not sufficiently committed to increasing petrol prices to agreed amounts."
"The ACCC considered appealing just in respect of the admitting parties. However, in considering this option the ACCC was conscious that it did not have any alleged agreements or understandings where all the parties had admitted their involvement. This would mean the appeal court would have to find that the admitting parties were part of an agreement or understanding which had been found otherwise to not exist. The ACCC considered that an appeal court was unlikely to allow such contradictory findings.
"This was a very complex, factually dense case arguing multiparty multi-transaction arrangements or understandings," Mr Samuel said. "Despite evidence in support of each arrangement or understanding, and admissions by five parties the court found, on balance, no illegal conduct existed.
"The Geelong judgment turns upon the interpretation of the facts. The ACCC has considered the court's view and decided not to appeal."