A Competition Tribunal hearing into alleged cartel activity and price-fixing by several companies in the wire and wire products manufacturing industry was again postponed in January pending a decision by the Competition Appeal Court (CAC).

The Competition Commission, which referred a case against the respondents to the tribunal for prosecution in January 2007, alleged that the companies, which were competitors, had engaged in a concerted practice to directly or indirectly fix the prices of light galvanised wire.

It further alleged that three of the respondents formed a body dubbed the ‘Allens Meshco Group’ and either entered into an agreement or engaged in a concerted practice to fix the prices of nails.

Respondents Allens Meshco, Wireforce, Hendok, Independent Galvanising and Associated Wire Industries – trading as Meshrite – attempted to have the tribunal hearing into the matter, which was set down from January 22 to February 4, postponed. But the tribunal denied an application brought by the respondents to have the hearing postponed pending the outcome of a related High Court case and said it would hear opening statements and first witness statements into the matter last week.

However, it emerged at the start of proceedings on that, following the tribunal’s rejection of the postponement application on January 22, the respondents had lodged an appeal of this decision with the CAC.

The tribunal proceedings and following consultations between the parties, they presented a set of draft directives to the tribunal, which it accepted, and which would see proceedings delayed until the CAC made a decision on the appeal request.

Engineering News understands that, should the CAC reject the respondents’ appeal, the matter would be referred back to the tribunal, which would resume the hearings.

However, should the CAC uphold the respon-dents’ appeal, a High Court decision on a separate appeal by the respondents would first need to be handed down before the matter could be heard by the tribunal.

In its earlier application to the High Court, Allens Meshco and nine other respondents asked the court to review a decision by the commission not to consider or grant leniency to the respondents.