Invisalign Australia Pty Ltd v SmileDirectClub LLC [2024] FCAFC 46

Invisalign Australia Pty Ltd v SmileDirectClub LLC [2024] FCAFC 46

Appeal allowed in part; appellate court found certain Price Comparison, Lower Cost, and Comparable Treatment Representations were conveyed to ordinary consumers by SDC's promotional materials, contrary to primary judge's findings, due to the dominant impression created by those advertisements. Grounds 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 allowed, evidentiary exclusion reversed. Utility and appropriateness of new trial and further relief deferred in light of respondents' business cessation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Hearing, Appellate Interlocutory Orders Pending Further Hearing
Outcome
Further hearing of the appeal to be listed; parties to file submissions on future conduct within 21 days; appeal allowed in part; no new trial or substantive relief ordered at this stage
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'price Comparison Advertising' 'comparative Advertising' 'appellate Review Standards' 'stay of Proceedings' 'new Trial Procedure' 'corrective Advertising' 'costs Orders']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'price Comparison Advertising' 'comparative Advertising' 'appellate Review Standards' 'stay of Proceedings' 'new Trial Procedure' 'corrective Advertising' 'costs Orders']

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

Appeal / Post Hearing, Appellate Interlocutory Orders Pending Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether certain promotional materials conveyed the alleged misleading or deceptive representations under ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether SDC made Price Comparison Representations, Lower Cost Representation, Comparable Treatment Representations and others' 'Adequacy and admissibility of evidence excluded at trial' 'Appropriateness of orders given SDC cessation of business' 'Standard for appellate review of representational findings']

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed in part; appellate court found certain Price Comparison, Lower Cost, and Comparable Treatment Representations were conveyed to ordinary consumers by SDC's promotional materials, contrary to primary judge's findings, due to the dominant impression created by those advertisements. Grounds 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 allowed, evidentiary exclusion reversed. Utility and appropriateness of new trial and further relief deferred in light of respondents' business cessation.

Court Disposition

Further hearing of the appeal to be listed; parties to file submissions on future conduct within 21 days; appeal allowed in part; no new trial or substantive relief ordered at this stage

Orders

  • ['The further hearing of the appeal be listed on a date to be fixed.' 'The parties file any written submission on the future conduct of the appeal within 21 days.']