Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2024] FCAFC 171

Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2024] FCAFC 171

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge made no appellable error: the representations were misleading or deceptive as found, they were statements of fact, accessorial liability of the second appellant was established under the test now endorsed by the High Court, proper inferences in relation to knowledge...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Appellant: Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: Dominique Grubisa; Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations, Remedies, Accessorial Liability, Evidence Inferences, Civil Penalties
Consumer Law Misleading and Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations Remedies Accessorial Liability Evidence Inferences Civil Penalties

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd

First Appellant

Dominique Grubisa

Second Appellant

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made in promotional materials and delivery of courses were misleading or deceptive
  2. 2 Whether statements were of opinion or fact
  3. 3 Whether second appellant was liable as an accessory

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge made no appellable error: the representations were misleading or deceptive as found, they were statements of fact, accessorial liability of the second appellant was established under the test now endorsed by the High Court, proper inferences in relation to knowledge were available, and the redress order was appropriate under the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs to respondent

Orders

  • The appeals be dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed.