Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dell Computers Pty Limited [2002] FCA 847

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dell Computers Pty Limited [2002] FCA 847 TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – unspecified that delivery charge compulsory – meaning of "price" – part only of the consideration for the supply of goods

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53(e), 53C and 80 Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 followed Puxu Pty Ltd v Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd (1980) 31 ALR 73 referred to Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (1992) 38 FCR 1 applied CRW Pty Ltd v Sneddon (1972) AR (NSW) 17 considered Siddons Pty Ltd v The Stanley Works Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 14 considered Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R444 referred to Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Limited (2000) 202 CLR 45 followed St Lukes Health Insurance v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-428 applied Minister for Health and Aged Care v Harrington Associates Limited (2000) 107 FCR 212 referred to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-519 applied Trade Practices Commission v Autoways Pty Limited (1990) ATPR 41-051 referred to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dell Computers Pty limited N1601 of 2001 jacobson j 2 July 2002 sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY DISTRICT REGISTRY N1601 OF 2001

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: DELL COMPUTERS PTY LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1 During the period from approximately June 1994 to approximately 30 November 2001, the respondent, in trade or commerce, engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, by advertising that its computer products were available at specified prices without clearly stipulating that the products were available only by way of delivery from Dell at a compulsory delivery charge.