Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd[1999] FCA 314

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd[1999] FCA 314

The applicant made out an arguable case that the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by advertising car rentals, truck hires, and free delivery at certain rates and conditions without adequately disclosing limitations, and that referring to free insurance without prominent disclosure of the excess payable was also arguably misleading. The balance of convenience and the public interest justified awarding interlocutory injunctive relief.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Steven Mark Conn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, False Advertising, Interlocutory Injunctions
Competition Law Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct False Advertising Interlocutory Injunctions

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

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Limited

First Respondent

Steven Mark Conn

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether advertisements for $29 per day car hire, truck hire at $29, and free delivery are misleading or deceptive under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether advertising 'free insurance' without disclosing substantial excess is misleading or deceptive under s 52

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant made out an arguable case that the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by advertising car rentals, truck hires, and free delivery at certain rates and conditions without adequately disclosing limitations, and that referring to free insurance without prominent disclosure of the excess payable was also arguably misleading. The balance of convenience and the public interest justified awarding interlocutory injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted

Orders

  • First respondent ordered to amend signage within 45 days to add clarifying information about rental prices, mileage, truck rental, and free delivery claims and allowed to apply for extension on notice.
  • First respondent ordered to recall brochures lacking altered text within 48 hours and allowed to apply for extension on notice.