Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 106 (Ch) (02 February 2011)

Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 106 (Ch) (02 February 2011)

The court held that the defendants' 2008 promotions breached the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 by creating a false impression that consumers had won prizes when, in fact, claiming the prizes required payment of costs that were not adequately disclosed or were excessive relative to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 106 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Office of Fair Trading; Defendant: Purely Creative Limited; Defendant: Strike Lucky Games Limited; Defendant: The Winners Club Limited; Defendant: McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Limited; Defendant: Dodd Marketing Limited; Defendant: Adrian Williams; Defendant: Wendy Ruck; Defendant: Catherine Cummings; Defendant: Peter Henry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Enforcement Order Under the Enterprise Act 2002 / Judgment After Contested Trial
Outcome
Enforcement order granted against the defendants (except Peter Henry, who had ceased involvement).
Legal Topics
Unfair Commercial Practices, Misleading Advertising, Enforcement Orders, Interpretation of EU Directives, Consumer Rights
Consumer Protection Commercial Law European Union Law Unfair Commercial Practices Misleading Advertising Enforcement Orders Interpretation of EU Directives Consumer Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Office of Fair Trading

Claimant

Purely Creative Limited

Defendant

Strike Lucky Games Limited

Defendant

The Winners Club Limited

Defendant

McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Limited

Defendant

Dodd Marketing Limited

Defendant

Adrian Williams

Defendant

Wendy Ruck

Defendant

Catherine Cummings

Defendant

Peter Henry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Enforcement Order Under the Enterprise Act 2002 / Judgment After Contested Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' 2008 promotions breached the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Enterprise Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the promotions created a false impression that consumers had won prizes when costs were involved in claiming them
  3. 3 Whether the defendants breached undertakings (Assurances) previously given to the OFT

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' 2008 promotions breached the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 by creating a false impression that consumers had won prizes when, in fact, claiming the prizes required payment of costs that were not adequately disclosed or were excessive relative to the value of the prize. The court found that such practices were misleading to the average consumer and likely to cause them to take transactional decisions they would not otherwise have taken. The court rejected the OFT's strict liability interpretation of Paragraph 31 but found that the defendants' conduct nonetheless constituted a breach under a purposive interpretation. The court...

Court Disposition

Enforcement order granted against the defendants (except Peter Henry, who had ceased involvement).

Orders

  • Defendants are prohibited from distributing promotions that create a false impression of winning a prize where claiming the prize involves undisclosed or excessive costs.
  • Defendants must comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in future promotions.