The parties had jointly proposed an agreed pecuniary penalty of $75 million, which the Federal Court held was manifestly inadequate and ordered a penalty of $125 million. This was upheld by the Full Court and the High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal.
Author: Karen Le Faucheur
The Court of Appeal in this case upheld the finding of misleading or deceptive conduct against the vehicle manufacturer and dealership. This was in circumstances of full compliance with regulations requiring a fuel consumption label displaying test results to be affixed to vehicles at the point of sale.
The Supreme Court of Victoria heard an application by a defendant for joinder of an alleged ‘concurrent wrongdoer’ in respect of claims made under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). After full and considered argument, the Court held that the claim for relief under the Corporations Act was not apportionable.
On 25 July 2017, the Federal Court ordered an egg supplier to pay a pecuniary penalty of $750,000 for falsely advertising eggs as “free range” and for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in so doing.
On 7 May 2014, the High Court unanimously held that Hills Industries Ltd (Hills) and Bosch Security Systems Pty Ltd (Bosch) established the defence of change of position. Hills and Bosch were not required to repay monies to Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited (“AFSL”), the party who had paid them monies as a result of a third party’s fraud. AFSL appealed from the decision of the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal was unanimously dismissed.