The Supreme Court has clarified that a company does not have to be convicted of anti-competitive practices before a senior officer of the company may be convicted of authorising or consenting to the company acting in an anti-competitive manner. The Circuit Court had asked the Supreme Court for guidance as to whether the manager of a home heating oil company, that was allegedly involved in unlawfully fixing the price of gas oil in Galway city, could be prosecuted for authorising or consenting to price-fixing. No prosecution was taken against the company itself.

The Competition Act provides that it is an offence for directors, managers and similar officers of an undertaking to authorise or consent to the undertaking acting in an anti-competitive manner. The accused manager of the company argued that he could not be convicted of a cartel offence unless the company had first been convicted of a similar offence.

The Supreme Court ruled that that the manager may be tried for competition offences even if the company has not been formally convicted. It will be sufficient that the jury makes a finding of fact that the company has committed a competition offence. The jury can make this finding on the basis of evidence put before it during the trial of the manager or other officer.

As a result of this case, it is now clear that directors, managers and officers of a company involved in anti-competitive practices may be prosecuted and convicted for their involvement, regardless of whether the company itself has been prosecuted or convicted.

Contributed by Claire Waterson.

Back to Legal News