CONSUMER LAW – whether appropriate to order jointly proposed agreed pecuniary penalty – specific and general deterrence is the primary, if not sole, purpose of imposing pecuniary penalties under s 224 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – unlike in criminal law, concepts such as deterrence may justify the imposition of a maximum penalty even in the absence of the most serious misconduct – the size of the contravener and its parent company are relevant – where consumers not intentionally misled, but senior managers became aware of and failed to rectify the issues – where the respondent has conceded liability, cooperated with the applicant and displayed contrition – agreed pecuniary penalty ordered
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0983
For more information, see the original judgement.
