CONSUMER LAW – where primary judge found that: (1) the first respondent represented to the appellant that the apartment it was selling to the appellant would be on the eleventh and uppermost floor of the building to be constructed; (2) the first respondent had reasonable grounds for the making of the representation – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the first respondent had reasonable grounds – primary judge’s reasoning upheld – appeal dismissed
Related cases – Competition Law
-
ACCC v Clorox Australia Pty Limited [2025] FCA 357
CONSUMER LAW – alleged contraventions of ss 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law – where representations made that kitchen tidy bags and garbage bags were made of 50% recycled plastic waste collected from the ocean or sea, when that was not the case – where parties jointly proposed agreed declarations of…
-
Jacksons Drawing Supplies PL v Jackson’s Art Supplies Ltd [2025] FCA 530
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – application for injunctive relief for breaches of s 18, s 29(1)(g) or s 29(1)(h) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (ACL) and passing off – delay by applicant in seeking relief – discretionary refusal of wide injunctive relief CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – passing off –…
-
Sunshine Loans Pty Ltd v ASIC [2025] FCAFC 34
CONSUMER LAW – appeal from declarations of contraventions of s 47(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and s 24(1A) of the National Credit Code (Code) in proceedings brought by regulator under the Act – where appellant in the business of providing small amount credit contracts – where small amount credit contracts made…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0221
For more information, see the original judgement.
