Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 114

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 114 Citation: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 114

Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 791

Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v DATELINE IMPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 000 557 282)

File number: QUD 669 of 2014

Judges: GILMOUR, McKERRACHER AND GLEESON JJ

Date of judgment: 28 August 2015

Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – false representations – representation that the product did not contain formaldehyde – appeal from finding of the primary judge that the appellant had not proved that the representation contravened Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52 and 53 – meaning of "formaldehyde" – whether primary judge erred in finding that the product did not contain formaldehyde on the expert evidence – the "effective life" of the product – whether primary judge erred in finding that testing of the product had to be undertaken within the product's "effective life". TRADE PRACTICES – reasonable grounds to make certain representations – whether the primary judge erred in finding that a reasonable ground for making a representation is that it is true – representation should be considered in light of the grounds known and whether those grounds were objectively reasonable. TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – cross appeal from finding of primary judge that the respondents contravened s 51A and s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by making a representation that the ban of the product in Ireland would be overturned – characterisation of the representation – whether simply an opinion that the ban could be overturned or whether an emphatic statement that the ban would be overturned based on test results – whether the representation was with respect to a future matter – whether the first respondent had objectively reasonable grounds for making the representation – accessorial liability – whether the second respondent knew that the representation was misleading and that there were not reasonable grounds for making the representation.