In the media – National
Gas supplier monopoly pricing hits domestic users hard: ACCC
Eastern state gas suppliers and pipeline operators have abused monopoly pricing power to gouge higher prices out of domestic users says the competition watchdog (22 April 2016). More...
Momentum Energy pays penalties of $54,000 in relation to renewable energy advertising
Energy retailer Momentum Energy Pty Ltd has paid penalties totalling $54,000 following the issue of five infringement notices by the ACCC. By its advertising campaign, Momentum gave consumers the misleading impression that Momentum offered a renewable energy product, when this was not the case (21 April 2016). More...
Court finds Europcar's standard rental terms unfair
The Federal Court has declared that a number of terms in Europcar Australia’s 2013 standard rental agreement to be unfair, and therefore void, in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Europcar was also ordered to pay a penalty of $100,000 for making false or misleading representations about consumers’ liability in the event of vehicle damage (19 April 2016). More...
ACCC wins case against misleading 'free range' egg supplier
The consumer watchdog says it has no sympathy for an egg supplier fined by the Federal Court for misleading buyers (15 April 2016). More...
Currency market crafts new code after banks pay $12b in fines
In about six weeks, currency traders will get a handbook designed to root out bad behaviour and price manipulation that led to $US9 billion ($12 billion) in bank fines and penalties (14 April 2016). More...
ANU alerts ACCC to anti-competitive admissions centres
The Australian National University (ANU) has lodged a formal complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleging anti-competitive behaviour by state-based university admissions centres (13 April 2016). More... More...
Nurofen facing $6m headache for misleading consumers
Consumer watchdog the ACCC says the makers of Nurofen should face a large fine for selling "pain specific" products that all contained the same ingredient and had the same effect (12 April 2016). More...
In practice and courts, published reports
CAANZ: Have your say on the Australian Consumer Law
The released Issues Paper is seeking views on whether the law is operating as intended, the effectiveness of its enforcement, and whether it can flexibly respond to new and emerging consumer issues. See further details on the Australian Consumer Law website. Submissions close 27 May 2016. (31 March 2016). More...
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CLA Trading Pty Ltd  FCA 377
CONSUMER LAW – unfair contract terms – misleading conduct – false or misleading representations – factors affecting pecuniary penalties under s 12GBA of the ASIC Act. More...
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Derodi Pty Ltd  FCA 365
CONSUMER LAW – contraventions of Australian Consumer Law admitted – agreed facts concerning “free range” representations – pecuniary penalty for contraventions of ss 29(1)(a) and 33 proposed by consent – appropriateness of proposed pecuniary penalty – relevant factors considered.
Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) ss 18, 29, 29(1), 29(1)(a), 33, 54, 224, 224(1), 224(1)(a)(ii), 224(1)(e), 224(3), 224(4)(b), 246, 246(2)(d), 247; Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21. More...
Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia  FCA 368
BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – where individual officers had dealings with separate clients of the company – where clients of the company financed the purchase of property – where the purchase of property is partially financed by unsecured loan – where the purchase of property is partially financed by bank loan secured by mortgage over the property – “knowledge” of a company – where individual officers, separately, did not act improperly – whether the “knowledge” of the company is the aggregate knowledge of officers of the company – whether there is one transaction – consideration of particular circumstances.
DAMAGES – where respondent liable for unconscionable conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – consideration of Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) – calculation of damages – nature of unconscionable conduct – availability of reduction of damages for contributory negligence – availability of apportionment for multiple wrongdoers. More...
Energizer Australia Pty Ltd v Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 347
CONTEMPT OF COURT – breach of injunction – where respondent admits it breached injunction by broadcast of television commercial on many channels and on many occasions extending over a period of approximately three weeks – where breach of injunction unintentional – where breach of injunction due to respondent’s lack of diligence – whether power to fine respondent – whether wilful disobedience – whether breach casual or accidental and unintentional – whether fine should be imposed on respondent – considerations relevant to the amount of any such fine including circumstances and magnitude of breach – where respondent exhibits genuine contrition and remorse – respondent ordered to pay fine of $40,000 and to pay applicant’s costs on indemnity basis. More...
T: +61 3 9321 9752
Ian Robertson, National Managing Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0401
Paul Venus, Managing Partner, Brisbane
T: +71 7 3135 0613
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.