Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 1286 File number(s): WAD 351 of 2012
Judge(s): SIOPIS J
Date of judgment: 2 November 2016
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – representations made as to the performance capability of heat reflective paint – the company admitted that it did not have reasonable grounds for the making of the representations – the contravening company cooperated with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – deterrence – pecuniary penalty.
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 29(1)(g), 224(2) (Sch 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53, 53(c) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 191
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1158 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited (2015) 327 ALR 540 Commonwealth v CFMEU; DFWBII v CFMEU (2015) 326 ALR 476 Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 Trade Practices Commission v CSR Limited [1990] FCA 521 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) (2011) 282 ALR 246 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd [2000] FCA 690
Date of hearing: 2-3 December 2015
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