Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 98

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 98

The representations that items of furniture were being sold at 'store cost plus one dollar' were misleading or deceptive, as sale prices substantially exceeded what the respondents paid for the goods. The disclaimer was not sufficiently prominent to cure this. Monty Khoury was knowingly concerned in or aided and abetted the conduct by the first respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; declarations and injunctions granted against the first and third respondents; compliance seminar order made; costs awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' 'injunctions']
['competition Law' 'consumer Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the advertisement 'store cost plus one dollar' was misleading or deceptive under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)" 'Whether the disclaimer accompanying the advertisement was effective in curing any misleading impression' 'Whether Monty Khoury was knowingly concerned in or aided, abetted or procured the contraventions by the first respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations that items of furniture were being sold at 'store cost plus one dollar' were misleading or deceptive, as sale prices substantially exceeded what the respondents paid for the goods. The disclaimer was not sufficiently prominent to cure this. Monty Khoury was knowingly concerned in or aided and abetted the conduct by the first respondent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; declarations and injunctions granted against the first and third respondents; compliance seminar order made; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Declaration of contravention of ss 52 and 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) against the first respondent.' 'Declaration of contravention by the first respondent in relation to the conduct attributed to the second respondent.' 'Declaration that the third respondent was knowingly concerned in and aided,...