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

  • ACCC consultation environmental and sustainability guidance

    ACCC consultation environmental and sustainability guidance

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission releases Draft Guidance to help businesses make environmental and sustainability claims without misleading consumers. Seeking input from stakeholders to ensure guidance is effective and up-to-date with consumer law.

    Read more …

  • Greenwashing on Facebook – ASIC fines Future Super

    Greenwashing on Facebook – ASIC fines Future Super

    Learn more about Greenwashing in Australia and the alleged incidents, with Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) responsible for regulating misconduct. ASIC issued an infringement notice to Future Super for making misleading Greenwashing claims on Facebook. Understand the legislative framework and how to avoid making false claims.

    Read more …

  • Consumer law updates business owners should know

    Consumer law updates business owners should know

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Act) amends various pieces of legislation to provide stronger competition and consumer protections.  In particular, the Act bolsters the penalties applicable for offences relating to unfair practices and unfair contract terms under as contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and…

    Read more …

  • Resigning as director – when is it effective?

    Resigning as director – when is it effective?

    On 18 February 2021, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Treasury Act) came into effect and introduced various measures to combat “phoenixing”.  One of the reasons for this legislation was to help combat illegal phoenix activity which involves the creation of a new company to continue the business of an existing…

    Read more …

  • DIN update – deadline looms for Australian company directors

    DIN update – deadline looms for Australian company directors

    As 30 November 2022 approaches, Australian company directors must apply for a Director Identification Number (DIN) to comply with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). Learn how to obtain your DIN, the application process and what documents you must provide.

    Read more …

  • Can contractors owe fiduciary duties to principals?

    Can contractors owe fiduciary duties to principals?

    This article examines whether independent contractors owe fiduciary duties to their principal, as well as any additional statutory duties that may be imposed on independent contractors who are company directors.

    Read more …

  • Disputed debts in body corporate matters

    Disputed debts in body corporate matters

    This article examines the potential consequences of missing contribution levy payments in community titles schemes. It looks at specific cases and the risks associated with disputed body corporate debts, including the High Court decision of David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48.

    Read more …

  • Employee share scheme reforms from 1 October 2022

    Employee share scheme reforms from 1 October 2022

    Changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA) will reduce regulatory requirements and remove barriers for businesses to offer employee share schemes (ESS). This offers cash-poor businesses the potential to attract and retain employees who can benefit from ESS.

    Read more …

  • Director’s right to review company records

    Director’s right to review company records

    As a director, it is important to understand your obligations and rights, including the right to access the company books. Explore this further in this article, which examines the case of Oswal v Burrup Holdings Limited [2011] FCA 609 and the implications of a company refusing a director access.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend