Specsavers Pty Ltd v Canstar Blue Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1153

Specsavers Pty Ltd v Canstar Blue Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1153

The application failed because Specsavers did not establish reasonable cause to believe it had or may have a right to relief under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Its concerns about the survey's currency, accessibility ratings, respondents' visits rather than purchases, and rating methodology were either misconceived, unsupported by evidence, speculative, or did not identify misleading or deceptive conduct. Specsavers also failed to establish that it lacked sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings, and in relation to currency of results failed to establish that Canstar was likely to have documents that would assist. The conditions in O 15A r 6 were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under O 15 a R 6 of the Federal Court Rules for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52' 'consumer Survey Results' 'federal Court Rules O 15 a R 6']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52' 'consumer Survey Results' 'federal Court Rules O 15 a R 6']

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

Application Under O 15 a R 6 of the Federal Court Rules for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Specsavers had reasonable cause to believe it had or may have a right to obtain relief against Canstar for contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether, after making all reasonable inquiries, Specsavers lacked sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings.' 'Whether there was reasonable cause to believe Canstar had or was likely to have documents relating to whether Specsavers had a right to relief and whether inspection would assist Specsavers in deciding whether to commence proceedings.' "Whether Canstar's description of survey respondents as having recently visited an optometrist, when the survey period was the previous two years, could support a potential s 52 claim." 'Whether reporting Just Spectacles as winner for accessibility of stores could support a potential s 52 claim.' 'Whether including survey respondents who visited stores but may not have purchased products could support a potential s 52 claim.' "Whether asserted concerns about Canstar's star rating methodology could support a potential s 52 claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because Specsavers did not establish reasonable cause to believe it had or may have a right to relief under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Its concerns about the survey's currency, accessibility ratings, respondents' visits rather than purchases, and rating methodology were either misconceived, unsupported by evidence, speculative, or did not identify misleading or deceptive conduct. Specsavers also failed to establish that it lacked sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings, and in relation to currency of results failed to establish that Canstar was likely to have documents that would assist. The conditions in O 15A r 6 were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, as taxed or agreed."]