Wills v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Ors
Case No.
S116/2023
Related Case
S118/2023 - Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) & Anor v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/04/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Wigney, O'Bryan & Downes JJ)
[2023] FCAFC 54
Catchwords
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Unconscionable conduct – Statutory unconscionability under s 21 of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") – Knowing concern in unconscionable conduct – Accessorial liability – Where second respondent carried on business providing vocational education and training courses to students – Where third respondent parent company of second respondent – Where applicant was Chief Operating Officer of third respondent, and for period Chief Executive Officer of second respondent – Where students enrolled in courses by second respondent were eligible for funding support under Commonwealth government scheme (VET-FEE HELP) – Where second respondent engaged agents to market to or recruit potential students – Where changes made to VET-FEE HELP scheme by Commonwealth to protect students from risk of misconduct by agents and providers – Where prior to 7 September 2015, second respondent had several controls in enrolment system which it implemented to ameliorate risk of unethical or careless conduct of agents with respect to enrolments – Where second respondent removed those controls after suffering declining enrolments – Where primary judge and Full Court held second respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of s 21 of ACL – Where primary judge held applicant was knowingly concerned in contravention of prohibition second respondent's unconscionable conduct – Where Full Court majority allowed one of applicant's grounds of appeal in part, that applicant did not know all of matters essential to contravention until he was acting CEO – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding that applicant had requisite knowledge to be liable as accessory to contravention of s 21, notwithstanding applicant did not have knowledge that conduct involved taking advantage of consumers or was otherwise against conscience – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding that applicant satisfied participation element for accessorial liability by (i) applicant's conduct before he had knowledge of essential matters which make up contravention; together with (ii) applicant's continued holding of position of authority, but no identified positive acts after applicant had requisite knowledge.
Documents
14/09/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
28/09/2023 Notice of appeal
02/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
21/12/2023 Reply
07/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-Visual Recording)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Second and Third Respondents)
08/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-Visual Recording)
14/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cessnock City Council (ABN 60 919 148 928) v. 123 259 932 Pty Ltd (ACN 123 259 932)
Case No.
S115/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/02/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Macfarlan, Brereton & Mitchelmore JJA)
[2023] NSWCA 21
Catchwords
Contract – Breach of contract – Remedies – Damages – Reliance damages – Recoupment presumption – Where dispute arose from plan to develop airport at Cessnock – Where applicant operated as both commercial party and relevant planning authority – Where applicant lodged development applicant for consolidation of airport land into lots 1 and 2 – Where respondent was company that hoped to build hanger on lot 2 – Where on 26 July 2007, applicant executed agreement whereby it promised to grant respondent lease of part of airport – Where respondent spent around $3.7 million constructing hangar – Where on 29 June 2011, applicant told respondent that it would not be proceeding with subdivision of airport as it could not afford to connect proposed lots to sewerage system – Where primary judge held applicant breached parties' agreement by not committing funds to connect proposed lots to sewerage, but only awarded nominal damages – Where primary judge distinguished case from Amann Aviation and McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377, such that recoupment presumption did not arise, and even if such presumption had arisen, applicant had rebutted it – Where Court of Appeal held recoupment presumption was engaged, and presumption had not been rebutted – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding presumption arose that respondent would have at least recouped its wasted expenditure if contract had been performed – Whether presumption arises where contract has inherent contingency that no net profit would be made.
Documents
15/09/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
28/09/2023 Notice of appeal
03/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
01/12/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/12/2023 Reply
13/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/05/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
LPDT v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
M70/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03 May 2023 Federal Court of Australia (Markovic, Thomas & Button JJ)
[2023] FCAFC 64
Catchwords
Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Direction 90 – Materiality – Where applicant convicted of criminal offences and sentenced to term of imprisonment – Where applicant's visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where applicant applied under s 501CA(4) to have cancellation revoked – Where Minister required Tribunal under s 499(1) of Migration Act to comply with certain directions as to how evaluative discretionary power should be exercised – Where Direction 90 requires Tribunal to consider "seriousness" of conduct – Where delegate decided not to revoke cancellation under s 501CA of Migration Act – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal and primary judge affirmed delegate's decision – Where Full Court found Tribunal erred in purporting to consider certain matters set out in cl 8.1.1 of Direction 90 – Where Full Court found each error immaterial – Whether Full Court erred in concluding each of second respondent's multiple failures to comply as required by s 499(2A) of Migration Act with Direction 90 were not material to Tribunal's decision – Whether Full Court erred in failing to conclude that, cumulatively, Tribunal's multiple non-compliances with Direction 90 were material – Proper approach to materiality of jurisdictional error.
Documents
14/09/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
27/09/2023 Notice of appeal
02/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
21/12/2023 Reply
06/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
06/02/2024 Amended Notice of appeal
10/04/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: REDLAND CITY COUNCIL V KOZIK & ORS
Date: 14 September 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 07m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: REDLAND CITY COUNCIL V KOZIK & ORS
Date: 13 September 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 33m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.