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

  • What exactly is securities hawking?

    What exactly is securities hawking?

    This article examines Section 736 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits security hawking. It outlines exemptions, consequences, definitions and further references.

    Read more …

  • Raising capital without disclosure

    Raising capital without disclosure

    This article explains the rules under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for raising capital in Australia without a formal disclosure document, such as a prospectus. It covers exceptions like the “20/12 rule” for small-scale offerings and other exemptions for specific investors. The article also highlights key provisions, restrictions on advertising, and ASIC’s role in regulating…

    Read more …

  • Directors and associates may be personally liable for SGC and PAYG

    Directors and associates may be personally liable for SGC and PAYG

    The Federal Government introduced legislation increasing director liability for non-compliance with Pay as you go (PAYG) and Super guarantee charge (SGC). The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expanded recovery powers. Click through to learn more and ensure compliance.

    Read more …

  • Directors’ Duties in Australia

    Directors’ Duties in Australia

    Directors of unlisted companies in Australia have a range of legal obligations to uphold. This article examines the duties of directors, as well as the potential penalties for breaching them. Discover more about the three sources of law that apply and how to ensure compliance.

    Read more …

  • What is a Joint Venture – Australian law

    What is a Joint Venture – Australian law

    Creating a Joint Venture in Australia requires careful consideration of structure, assets, responsibilities and rights. It can range from unincorporated to fully incorporated, and must ensure success for all Participants.

    Read more …

  • Is your ACN on all your public documents?

    Is your ACN on all your public documents?

    Discover the requirements and penalties for displaying an Australian Company Number (ACN) on public documents. Find out what constitutes a public document and how to ensure your business is compliant. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • Top 7 mistakes made in Shareholders’ Agreements

    Top 7 mistakes made in Shareholders’ Agreements

    This article outlines the top 7 mistakes made in Shareholders’ Agreements, covering common pitfalls such as not having an agreement at all, failing to consider a tailored constitution, and overlooking the impact of future events. It provides insights into the importance of having a well-thought-out agreement to protect shareholders and ensure the long-term success of…

    Read more …

  • Strategy over structure

    Strategy over structure

    Strategic planning is essential for new or expanding businesses. It can improve operating efficiencies, provide clarity on company culture, better customer relations, and protect personal/business assets. A comprehensive plan can drive better success for the business and give external stakeholders the best chance to offer value.

    Read more …

  • How large must a company be to list on the ASX?

    How large must a company be to list on the ASX?

    ASX released consultation paper on listing eligibility requirements. Learn more about the profits, assets, and shareholder spread tests needed to determine if your organisation is suitable to list on the stock exchange.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend