Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1365

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Simply No‑Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1365 TRADE PRACTICES ‑ Prohibition of unconscionable conduct in connection with supply or possible supply of goods or services ‑ Meaning of "unconscionable" ‑ Whether limited to conduct that is unconscionable in equity. Trade Practices Act 1974 ss 51AC, 51AD, 80 Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 465 considered Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41‑741 applied ACCC v Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 169 ALR 324 considered Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 445 cited Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 cited ACCC v Leelee Pty Ltd (2000) ATPR 41‑742 considered AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v SIMPLY NO‑KNEAD (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD and CAMERON BATES V 318 OF 1999 SUNDBERG J 22 SEPTEMBER 2000 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 318 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: SIMPLY NO-KNEAD (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD (ACN 007 172 830)

FIRST RESPONDENT

CAMERON BATES

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 SEPTEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT DECLARES THAT the second respondent was, within the meaning of section 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, a person involved in the first respondent's contraventions of sections 51AC(1) and 51AD of the Act referred to in paragraphs 16, 21, 23, 27, 29 and 31 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed by leave on 13 September 2000. THE COURT ORDERS THAT the second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA