On 26 March 2026, the Federal Court issued its final determination (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 371) against Qteq Pty Ltd. It fined Qteq $5 million and its then executive chairman, Simon Ashton, $1 million personally for attempting to induce competitors in the oil and gas services industry to enter into cartel arrangements. All five attempts, made between 2017 and 2019, failed because the other parties refused to participate.
Mr Simon Ashton’s $1 million penalty is the highest personal fine the Federal Court has ever ordered for a competition law breach under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). The Court went a step further and made a non-indemnification order that prevents Mr Ashton from drawing on insurance or company funds to cover it.
What counts as cartel conduct?
Under the CCA, a ‘cartel provision’ in a contract, arrangement or understanding exists where the relevant parties are competitors (or would be, if not for the arrangement) the ‘competition condition’ and the provision has either:
- a purpose of:
- preventing, restricting or limiting production, capacity, supply or acquisition
- allocating customers or suppliers between any or all the parties to the agreement, by class or geographic area
- rigging bids
- a purpose or effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining prices (including discounts, allowances, rebates or credits) in relation to goods or services to be supplied or acquired.
For, the ‘competition condition’ to be met, at least two parties to the arrangement must, in relation to the matters covered by the relevant purpose condition or purpose or effect condition:
- actually be in competition with each other
- be likely to be in competition with each other, or
- but for the arrangement, be, or be likely to be, in competition with each other.
The facts
Qteq is a Queensland‑based oil and gas services company. Between 2017 and 2019, Qteq and Mr Simon Ashton tried, on five separate occasions, to draw competitors into arrangements containing cartel provisions.
These attempts included proposals not to supply major oil and gas companies with ‘gauge works’, to rig a multi‑million-dollar tender, and to divide up market share between the businesses. Each approach was rebuffed and no agreement was reached.
Procedural history
The ACCC filed civil cartel proceedings against Qteq and Mr Simon Ashton in December 2022.
In April 2025, the Federal Court found that the Chaiman and Qteq had attempted to induce cartel arrangements with Pro‑Test Pty Ltd on three occasions and with Easternwell Service No 2 on two occasions.
In its penalty judgment, handed down on 26 March 2026, the Court fined Qteq $5 million and Mr Simon Ashton $1 million personally. The ACCC confirmed that this is the highest penalty ever imposed on an individual for a competition law breach under the CCA.
Why an ‘attempt’ was enough
Section 76(1)(d) of the CCA allows a court to impose a pecuniary penalty where a person has ‘attempted to induce’ another to contravene a cartel provision under sections 45AJ and 45AK of the CCA. The Court’s approach mirrors Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BlueScope Steel Limited (No 5) [2022] FCA 1475, which also involved unsuccessful attempts to induce cartel conduct.
The Court identified three distinct categories of conduct by Qteq:
- market exclusion, through attempts to persuade competitors to refuse supply
- bid rigging, in relation to the tender
- market allocation, through attempts to divide market share.
The key takeaway is that a concluded cartel agreement is not required for a contravention of the CCA. The attempt to induce cartel conduct is itself a contravention, regardless of whether it succeeds.
The orders against Mr Simon Ashton
Alongside the pecuniary penalties, the Court made a non‑indemnification order. This order prohibits Mr Ashton from being reimbursed, insured or otherwise indemnified for the penalty, regardless of whether the money would come from:
- an insurance policy, such as a directors’ and officers’ liability policy
- Qteq
- any other third party.
In practical terms, Ashton was required to pay the $1 million penalty from his own pocket, with no ability to pass the cost on to an insurer or to Qteq. The Court took the view that, without this order, the penalty ‘would have no real deterrent effect’.
The ACCC’s commentary
The ACCC has described cartels as a significant threat to competition in the Australian economy and says enforcement against cartel conduct remains an enduring priority.
The size of the penalty imposed for an attempted contravention sends a clear message: even a failed approach to a competitor can attract serious enforcement action to protect competition in Australian markets.
The ACCC has also reminded the public that anyone with information about potential cartel conduct can make an anonymous report for investigation.
Practical implications
This case is a timely reminder for businesses to take the following steps to remain compliant with the CCA:
- Review and refresh competition and consumer law compliance training, with particular emphasis on informal or exploratory contact with competitors.
- Ensure that any contact with competitors, however tentative or preliminary, is documented and escalated to legal or compliance teams where necessary.
- Reassess insurance and indemnity arrangements, on the basis that non‑indemnification orders can and will be sought where individual deterrence is in issue.
- Consider the ACCC’s cartel immunity policy and anonymous reporting channels where past or ongoing conduct is identified internally.
- Treat board and executive oversight of competitor engagement as a governance priority, not an afterthought.
Please contact our competition and consumer law team to discuss the matters raised in this article or to arrange competition and consumer law training for your organisation.
