Ascot Four Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2009] FCAFC 61

Ascot Four Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2009] FCAFC 61

The appeal was dismissed because the strike through prices in Ascot Four's catalogue were not prices at which any of the jewellery items had been sold, and the advertising misled a significant section of consumers into believing they would receive a saving based on an illusory comparison. The representation was therefore false or misleading under s 75AZC(1)(g) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Parties
Appellant: Ascot Four Pty Ltd; Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations, Dual Pricing, Retail Advertising, Interpretation of Trade Practices Legislation
Trade Practices Law Consumer Law Misleading and Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations Dual Pricing Retail Advertising Interpretation of Trade Practices Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ascot Four Pty Ltd

Appellant

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ascot Four made false or misleading representations about the price of goods via dual pricing in catalogues
  2. 2 What meaning was conveyed by the strike through price and sale price in the advertising
  3. 3 Whether consumers would be misled into thinking they were receiving a genuine saving

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the strike through prices in Ascot Four's catalogue were not prices at which any of the jewellery items had been sold, and the advertising misled a significant section of consumers into believing they would receive a saving based on an illusory comparison. The representation was therefore false or misleading under s 75AZC(1)(g) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.