Commercial law

Changes to unfair contract terms

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) received royal assent on 9 November 2022, introducing significant amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  These amendments target the Unfair Contract Terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL, strengthening the rights of consumers while imposing stricter requirements on businesses using Standard Form Contracts (SFC).

Overview on unfair contract terms

Laws concerning UCTs were introduced when the ACL came into force on 1 January 2011 and replaced the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).  The ACL is contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and is applied as legislation for Commonwealth, State, and Territory consumer protection.  The laws were introduced with the purpose of preventing abuse by unfair terms in non-negotiable small business contracts (Standard Form Contracts).

What are unfair contract terms?

UCTs are clauses in non-negotiable contracts that attempt to leverage a business’ position of power over a consumer.  A term is considered an ‘unfair contract term’ if it is included in a SFC and satisfies all the following:

  • it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of parties under the contract;
  • it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party advantaged by the contractual term; and
  • it causes detriment or significant disadvantage to the other party.

What are standard form contracts?

There is no single definition of a SFC, however certain characteristics help identify such contracts.  An SFC is prepared by one party and there is typically no form of negotiation between the parties of the contract.  An SFC is offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.  Examples where SFCs are commonly used include companies that provide subscription services, telecommunication services, and internet provider services.

When determining if an SFC exists a court will consider whether a contracting party:

  • has all or most of the bargaining power in the transaction;
  • prepared the contract without or before any discussion between the parties about the transaction;
  • could effectively only either accept or reject the terms of the contract as presented;
  • was given any real opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract; and
  • whether the terms of the contract account for any specific features of the other party or the transaction.

Amended provisions

Schedule 2 of the Amending Act aims to reduce the prevalence of UCTs in both consumer and business contracts by altering the regime regarding UCTs in several other pieces of legislation including:

Key changes

Section 47 of the Amending Act, contained in Schedule 2, alters the previous definition of a small business contract in the ACL.  Previously, a small business contract was considered a contract with an upfront price payable not exceeding $300,000.00 (or not exceeding $1 million if the contract period surpassed twelve (12) months).  The changes alter section 23(4) of the ACL and a small business contract now exists if at least one party to the contract:

  • employs fewer than 100 persons; or
  • has an annual turnover of less than $10 million.

The  ASIC Act is also amended by section 49 of the Amending Act, contained in Schedule 2, which replaces the previous definition of small businesses contract.  The amendments to the ASIC Act at subsections 12BF(4), (5) and (6) mean that a contract is considered a small business contract if the upfront contract price does not exceed $5 million and one party either:

  • employs fewer than 100 persons; or
  • its most recent annual turnover before the contract was made was less than $10 million.

The new monetary thresholds have broadened the scope of small business contracts and encompass any standard form contract for goods or services where one party to the contract is a small business under the altered laws.

Penalties for every instance

Courts currently possess the authority to enforce significant penalties for every instance involving reliance upon, inclusion or proposal of an UCT.  This marks a departure from the previous legislative framework, which solely allowed courts to nullify UCTs or prevent a party relying on the specific contract clause.  It also means that the offending party may be fined merely for including an UCT in the contract even if it does not seek to rely on the UCT.

Penalties for businesses

Companies should be cognisant of the maximum penalties that now apply, including:

  • maximum fines of $50 million; 
  • an amount three times the value of the benefit derived from the conduct that is ‘reasonably attributable’ in the case (if that is ascertainable by the Court); or
  • an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the adjusted turnover during the breach period in instances where the court cannot ascertain the benefit.

Penalties for individuals

Individuals may now also face a maximum penalty of $2.5 million.

Advice to businesses

Businesses are strongly encouraged to obtain legal advice to review their contracts and avoid inadvertently being exposed to the new penalties.  Businesses should amend their standard forms and small business contracts to conform to the amended legal framework.  This includes:

  • new contracts entered into from 9 November 2023; and
  • existing contacts that are varied or renewed on or after 9 November 2023.

Links and further references

Legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth)

Further information about unfair contract terms

If you need advice on unfair contract terms, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about unfair contract terms

  • Electronic service of legal documents

    Electronic service of legal documents

    The decision in Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 30 examined validity of service of documents via email and Dropbox. Find out judgement and “take-aways” to help navigate complex legal process of document service.

    Read more …

  • Shareholders’ agreements and inconsistency clauses explained

    Shareholders’ agreements and inconsistency clauses explained

    When shareholders are restricted from accessing company information, it may be a sign of a dispute. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides mechanisms for minority shareholders to obtain relevant information, but they must prove they are acting in ‘good faith’ and ‘for a proper purpose’.

    Read more …

  • Do I need a financial assistance whitewash?

    Do I need a financial assistance whitewash?

    Financial assistance in Section 260A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) allows companies to support acquisition of shares/units. Obtain shareholder approval in a compliant manner with a whitewash or face civil penalties. Contact us for a free and confidential discussion.

    Read more …

  • Prohibition on the acquisition of relevant interests

    Prohibition on the acquisition of relevant interests

    Section 606 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) prohibits acquiring a relevant interest in voting shares, with exceptions. This article explains the definitions and thresholds that apply, provides a full list of exceptions, relevant case studies, and further resources for legal advice.

    Read more …

  • Transfer Duty in business acquisitions

    Transfer Duty in business acquisitions

    This article explores the application of transfer duty in business acquisitions, including what it is, what is a dutiable transaction, dutiable property, dutiable value, unencumbered value, when it is determined, and who must pay.

    Read more …

  • The GST going concern exemption explained

    The GST going concern exemption explained

    When selling a business in Australia, it’s important to know the going concern exemption to goods and services tax (GST). Learn more about the applicable threshold requirements and legislative references.

    Read more …

  • Drag along rights can be enforced in Court

    Drag along rights can be enforced in Court

    This article examines a 2013 case, William McCausland v Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 902, which serves as a reminder of the enforceability of drag along clauses in shareholders agreements and the complexity of factors that can affect the legal position of the parties involved.

    Read more …

  • Redeemable preference shares – what to know

    Redeemable preference shares – what to know

    This article discusses the rights, obligations and taxation implications of Redeemable Preference Shares (REDP), hybrid securities with both debt and equity characteristics as defined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Case law examples and the process for issuing REDP according to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are also discussed.

    Read more …

  • Governance standards for not-for-profit organisations

    Governance standards for not-for-profit organisations

    Discover the full scope of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Governance Standards and related topics. Learn how these standards provide a minimum level of assurance for charities to meet community expectations and ensure compliance with Australian law.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend