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
-
Ezy-Fit Engineering Group Pty Limited v Microm Nominees Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] FCA 1367
DAMAGES – determination of inputs for purpose of assessment of lost profits APPORTIONMENT – concurrent wrongdoers – representations misleading or deceptive – same representations made by two parties – value judgement as to apportionment of blame
-
Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd v Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 139
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – where, by its use of trade mark “HOUSE BED & BATH” (appellant’s mark) in relation to soft homewares in a market in which respondent’s trade mark “BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE” (respondent’s mark) has a significant reputation, appellant found to have contravened ss 18(1) and 29(1)(g) and (h)…
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Latitude Finance Australia (No 2) [2024] FCA 1205
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – alleged contraventions of ss 12DA(1), 12DF(1) and 12DB(1)(a), (i) and (g) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – where defendants prepared, published and broadcast, or caused to be prepared, published and broadcast, a large number of newspaper, radio, and television advertisements in Australia…
