Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Burden [2017] FCA 399 File number(s): WAD 267 of 2016
Judge(s): GILMOUR J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2017
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – false and misleading representations as to the health effects and benefits of e-cigarette products – imposition of pecuniary penalty – principles relevant to the imposition of a penalty pursuant to s 224 of the Australian Consumer Law – agreed penalty – consideration of whether agreed penalty is within the permissible range of penalties – declarations – compliance orders – injunctions – corrective notices
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Part 3-1, Part 5-2, ss 18, 29, 29(1)(a), 33, 224, 224(1)(a)(ii), 224(1)(e), 224(2), 224(3), 224(4)(b), 232, 232(1)(a), 232(1)(e), 232(4)(a), 246, 246(2)(b)(i) and (ii) Companies Act 1993 (NZ) ss 248(1)(c)(i), 250 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, ss 5(1)(g), 131(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 21, 43 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 76 76E, 76E(2) Insolvency (Cross-Border) Act 2006 (NZ) Schedule 1, art 5
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 929 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 327 ALR 540 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] ATPR 42-140 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Humax Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 706 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 215 ALR 301 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Marksun Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 695 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 279 ALR 609 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pepe's Ducks Ltd [2013] FCA 570 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Sampson [2011] FCA 1165 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) (2011) 282 ALR 246 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Social-Lites Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 398 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 188 FCR 238, 275 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) (2016) 337 ALR 647 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 41–993 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 Ponzio v B&P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] 158 FCR 543 Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 216 CLR 53 Singtel Optus v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 287 ALR 249 Trade Practices Commission v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-375
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