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...
Cases
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CLA
Trading Pty Ltd [2016] 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 [2016] 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
[2016] 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 [2016] 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...
This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.
