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
-
Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 900
COMPETITION LAW — digital technology — Apple mobile devices — operating system software — iOS smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps — web browsers — Apple’s App Store — downloading apps — installing apps — app developers — access to platforms — two-sided platforms — platform operators —…
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 867
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – where the respondent represented to consumers on its website, via email and on its social media accounts that they could purchase airfares for promoted prices – where the respondent represented to certain consumers that their airfare bookings were confirmed – where the respondent admitted that it contravened…
-
Fu v Bondi Junction Prime PL (No 2) [2025] FCA 221
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…
