Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Unique International College Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2018] FCAFC 155 Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Unique International College [2017] FCA 727 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Unique International College (No 7) [2017] FCA 1289
File number: NSD 2025 of 2017
Judges: ALLSOP CJ, MIDDLETON AND MORTIMER JJ
Date of judgment: 19 September 2018
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – alleged contraventions of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law – provision of online vocational educational courses covered by the VET FEE-HELP scheme – whether appellant engaged in unconscionable system of conduct or pattern of behaviour – unconscionability as a characterisation related to human conduct by reference to conscience – conscience as reflected in the statute – insufficient evidence to found conclusion of an unconscionable system or pattern of behaviour
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12CB Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2, Australian Consumer Law, ss 21, 22 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 97, 98, 140 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 (Cth), reg 81(1)(c) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 16.42
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ACN 099 814 749 Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 403; 344 ALR 61 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advanced Medical Institute Pty Limited) [2015] FCA 368; ATPR 42-498 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v EDirect Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1045 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 350; ATPR 42-437 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd (ACN 050 411 946) (in liq) [2002] FCA 402 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Keshow [2005] FCA 558; ASAL 55-142 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kojic [2016] FCAFC 186; 249 FCR 421 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Jenyns v Public Curator (Qld) [1953] HCA 2; 90 CLR 113 Kobelt v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] FCAFC 18 Lowden v Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co 298 US 160 (1936) Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; 110 ALR 449 NRM Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2016] FCAFC 98 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 50; 236 FCR 199 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28; 258 CLR 525 The Juliana (1822) 2 Dods 504; 165 ER 1560
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate