Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116 (06 April 2017)

Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd & Anor -v- Dunnes Stores [2017] IECA 116 (06 April 2017)

The High Court misapplied the legal tests for comparability and misleading advertising by requiring disclosure of all material differences as a condition for lawful comparative advertising. The correct test is whether the products meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose, and whether the advertising is misleading to the average consumer. Comparative advertising based solely on price is permitted if not misleading, and differences must be disclosed only if they are capable of significantly affecting the consumer's choice. The trial judge's misunderstanding of the regulatory regime undermined the factual analysis and conclusions.

Citation
[2017] IECA 116
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: ALDI STORES (IRELAND) LTD.; Plaintiff/respondent: ALDI GMBH & CO KG; Defendant/applicant: DUNNES STORES
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court's interpretation of the regulations overturned.
Legal Topics
Comparative Advertising, Misleading Advertising, Injunctions, Statutory Interpretation
Commercial Law Consumer Protection EU Law Comparative Advertising Misleading Advertising Injunctions Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALDI STORES (IRELAND) LTD.

Plaintiff/respondent

ALDI GMBH & CO KG

Plaintiff/respondent

DUNNES STORES

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dunnes Stores' comparative advertising campaign breached the European Communities (Misleading and Comparative Advertising) Regulations 2007 and the Consumer Protection Act 2007
  2. 2 Whether the High Court applied the correct legal tests to comparative advertising
  3. 3 Whether the advertising was misleading under the relevant statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court misapplied the legal tests for comparability and misleading advertising by requiring disclosure of all material differences as a condition for lawful comparative advertising. The correct test is whether the products meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose, and whether the advertising is misleading to the average consumer. Comparative advertising based solely on price is permitted if not misleading, and differences must be disclosed only if they are capable of significantly affecting the consumer's choice. The trial judge's misunderstanding of the regulatory regime undermined the factual analysis and conclusions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court's interpretation of the regulations overturned.

Orders

  • The injunction granted by the High Court is set aside.
  • Case remitted for reconsideration of whether specific advertising was misleading under the correct legal test.