Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Polaris Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 006 102 601) v Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd (ACN 098 876 212) (No 2) [2009] FCA 1111
POLARIS COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 006 102 601) v DYNAMIC HEARING PTY LTD (ACN 098 876 212) and PLANTRONICS PTY LTD (ACN 080 486 193)
VID 676 of 2006
SUNDBERG J
30 SEPTEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 676 of 2006
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: POLARIS COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 006 102 601)
Applicant
AND: DYNAMIC HEARING PTY LTD (ACN 098 876 212)
First Respondent
PLANTRONICS PTY LTD (ACN 080 486 193)
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 30 SEPTEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. The respondents have: (a) engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic); and (b) in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or in connection with the promotion of the supply of such goods, made false or misleading representations with respect to the standard, quality or grade of such goods, in contravention of s 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and s 11 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic), by publishing and distributing a report entitled "Comparisons of Acoustic Shock Protection Devices – Plantronics ADRO M15D versus the Polaris SoundShield" ("the comparison report") which contains the following misrepresentations: (i) that the applicant's SoundShield device is unsuitable for use in call centres because of its poor intelligibility when background noise is present; (ii) that the applicant's SoundShield device fails to comply with the Telstra intelligibility requirement of 90% intelligibility in call centre environments with conversational chatter to 55dBA; (iii) that the applicant's SoundShield device is unsuitable for TT4 compliant operation so far as speech intelligibility is concerned; and (iv) that the testing reported in the comparison report was a properly conducted scientific test.
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