Gadens acted for Hutchinson Builders (Hutchinson) in the High Court of Australia in a matter that clarifies the meaning of an 'understanding' under Australia's competition laws.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) appealed a unanimous Full Court decision, arguing that Hutchinson had reached an 'understanding' with the CFMEU when it terminated a subcontractor following industrial pressure.

Gadens represented Hutchinson throughout the proceedings, which involved complex questions at the intersection of competition law and industrial pressure. On 2 April 2025, the High Court (4:1) dismissed the ACCC's appeals with costs in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2025] HCA 10.

The decision provides greater certainty for businesses managing supplier and industrial relationships. The Court confirmed that an 'understanding' requires more than a party acting in response to pressure. There must be communicated assent—express or tacit—that demonstrates a commitment between the parties. That assent must be distinct from, and precede, the conduct said to give effect to the understanding. Simply yielding to a threat, without more, is not enough.

Lead Partner Mitchell Byram said:

“This decision provides a clearer framework for assessing conduct under section 45E. It offers practical guidance for businesses responding to commercial or industrial pressure, helping them act with confidence while managing competition law risk.”