Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Limited (ACN 051 775 556) [2007] FCA 1904
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – effectiveness of a disclaimer – false representations about services – representations that goods or service have performance or other characteristics they do not have – television, print and internet advertisements – assessing conduct by reference to a specific class or classes of consumers – whether conduct by a licensed dealer can be said to have been "engaged in on behalf of" the licensor company or "at the direction or with the consent or agreement of" a servant of the licensor company under s 84(2)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) if the licensor company had a direct interest in the conduct and failed to take steps to stop it
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53(aa), 53(c), 84(2)(b)
.au Domain Administration Ltd v Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 521 cited and followed Alpine Holdings Pty Ltd v Warwick Entertainment Centre Pty Ltd (2003) 11 Tas R 242 cited Astrazeneca Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd [2006] ATPR 42-106 cited and followed Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra (2004) 208 ALR 459 cited Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 cited and followed Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 cited and followed Duracell Australia Pty Ltd v Union Carbide Australia Ltd (1988) 14 IPR 293 cited and followed Finucane v New South Wales Egg Corp (1988) 80 ALR 486 cited Freeman & Lockyer (a firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 cited Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 193 ALR 629 cited and followed Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd (No 2) (2007) ATPR 42-136 cited Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 560 cited Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 46-048 cited Lisciandro v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 69 FCR 180 cited National Exchange Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] ATPR 42-000 cited and followed Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 cited Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] FCA 859 cited Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 cited Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 444 cited Telstra Corporation Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 36 IPR 515 cited and followed Trade Practices Commission v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 326 cited Trade Practices Commission v Sun Alliance Australia Ltd [1994] ATPR 41-286 cited
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