ASIC v Kobelt

Last updated

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided12 June 2019
Citation(s) [2019] HCA 18
Transcript(s) [2018] HCATrans 252
[2018] HCATrans 153
Case history
Prior action(s) [2018] FCAFC 18
[2016] FCA 1327
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon & Edelman JJ
Case opinions
appeal dismissed
(per Kiefel CJ, Bell JJ)
(Keane J)
(Gageler J)
dissenting
(Nettle J)
(Gordon J)
(Edelman J)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] It was an appeal brought by ASIC against a Mr Kobelt, seeking to overturn a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court. It had been found that while Kobelt had contravened s29(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) [2] (for engaging in "credit activity" unlicensed), he did not engage in "unconscionable conduct in connection with financial services" in contravention with s12CB(1) of the ASIC Act. [3] [4]

Contents

A majority of the High Court dismissed ASIC's appeal. [5]

Factual background

The respondent to the appeal, Kobelt, ran a general store in Mintabie, South Australia. He was found by the Federal Court to have supplied credit to customers at his store via a system referred to as a "book-up" credit system. Most credit was supplied for the purchase of used cars. Customers were not required to pay for goods up front, but had to provide their bank cards and pin numbers to Kobelt. Once their bank accounts received money, Kobalt would draw down the accounts over multiple transactions until the funds had all been withdrawn. [4] As the accounts were immediately reduced to zero upon payment, customers were left unable to buy food and other essentials, so Kobelt would allow them to spend up to 50% of the money deducted on any given payday; to pay for groceries at his store. This tied them to his store and other stores in Mintabie. [4]

Kobelt kept poor records of the amount owed by each customer. His customers were, according to the court, "characterized by their poverty and low levels of literacy and numeracy, which relevantly meant that they lacked financial literacy". [6] Most were Indigenous Aṉangu people. He held onto their bank cards at all times, except when they departed from the Aṉangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands. He would then return the cards on condition that they give it back upon their return. [4] Kobelt's record keeping practices preventing him from knowing the remaining balances within his customer's accounts. [4]

The trial judge had found that Kobelt had engaged in credit activity while unlicensed, and that his conduct was unconscionable, in violation of s12CB(1) of the ASIC Act. The Full Federal Court upheld the unlicensed credit finding, but unanimously held he had not engaged in the relevant form of unconscionable conduct. [4]

Decision

Majority decision

The majority of the High Court decided that Kobelt had not engaged in the relevant form of unconscionable conduct under the act. The majority consisted of three sets of reasons, one jointly written by Kiefel CJ and Bell JJ; while the others were written by Keane J and Gageler J.

Kiefel CJ and Bell J

Kiefel and Bell first discussed the standard of conscience "fixed" by s12CB(1) of the ASIC act. They found that the term "unconscionable" was to be understood as bearing its "ordinary meaning". They stated that the values that informed that standard included those identified by Allsop CJ in Paciocco v ANZ; which included, relevantly; [7]

"the protection of those whose vulnerability as to the protection of their own interests places them in a position that calls for a just legal system to respond for their protection, especially from those who would victimise, predate or take advantage"

The justices considered this determinative of the appeal. They concluded that "The difficulty with ASIC’s system case of statutory unconscionability lies in identifying any advantage that Mr Kobelt obtained from the supply of book-up credit that can fairly be said to be against conscience." [4]

Due to the lack of relevant vulnerability, it followed there was an "absence of unconscientious advantage obtained by Mr Kobelt ... under his book-up system". The pair moved to dismiss ASIC's appeal.

Keane J

Keane agreed with the judgement of Kiefel and Bell, and found additionally that ASIC "did not establish that the respondent exploited his customers’ socio-economic vulnerability in order to extract financial advantage from them." Keane found that Kobelt had not victimized his customers for financial gain. He pointed out that ASIC's argument that Kobelt had a high degree of bargaining power was overstated as the customers could have decided to take collective action against him.

Gageler J

Gageler J agreed with the proposed orders of Kiefel, Bell and Keane, but followed different reasoning.

Dissent

Nettle, Gordon, and Edelman dissented, finding that Kobelt's book-up system was unconscionable in the relevant statutory sense. [4]

Nettle and Gordon JJ

Nettle and Gordon noted that the dispute centred around whether the transactions could be considered voluntary. [4] They wrote:

"It is important to appreciate, therefore, that considerations of voluntariness need to be assessed in the context of the system of conduct in issue. Conduct can be unconscionable even where the innocent party is a willing participant; the question is how that willingness or intention was produced. An innocent party may be capable of making an independent or rational judgment about an advantage in an otherwise bad bargain. However, an advantage, and the capacity of the innocent party to identify that advantage and make a rational choice, cannot operate to transform what is, in all the circumstances, an exploitative arrangement. Nor can the existence of that advantage absolve from liability the stronger party who unconscientiously takes advantage of the weaker party." - Nettle and Gordon JJ at [157] [8]

Edelman J

Edelman described the choice of participating in the book-up credit scheme as "Hobson's choice - no matter how badly they need credit, they can either “choose” that system or “choose” no credit at all.”

Agreeing with Nettle and Gordon JJ, Edelman drew upon the notion of unconscionability at equity to inform the legal standard applicable. He pointed to the legislative history of s12CC, [9] and found Parliamentary intention to extend the section beyond prior interpretations of its meaning.

Reception and commentary

Professor Katy Barnett of Melbourne Law School wrote of the decision: "The difference in approach between the majority and the minority appears to come down to a difference of opinion in values, which flows through to the way in which they judge the voluntariness of the transactions. (The result) may be difficult to apply in future cases." [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<i>Competition and Consumer Act 2010</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. Prior to 1 January 2011, it was known as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The Act is the legislative vehicle for competition law in Australia, and seeks to promote competition, fair trading as well as providing protection for consumers. It is administered by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and also gives some rights for private action. Schedule 2 of the CCA sets out the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Federal Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to determine private and public complaints made in regard to contraventions of the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unconscionability</span> Doctrine in contract law

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<i>Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem.

<i>Louth v Diprose</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Louth v Diprose, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

<i>Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

<i>Brown v Tasmania</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brown v Tasmania, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 18 October 2017. The case was an important decision about the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution in which the majority held that provisions of the Tasmanian Protesters Act were invalid as a burden on the implied freedom of political communication in a way that was not reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to the legitimate purpose of protecting businesses and their operations.

<i>Alley v Gillespie</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Alley v Gillespie, was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia that considered the purpose and scope of s 46 of the Australian Constitution. It was the first application brought under the Common Informers Act 1975 (Cth).

<i>Love v Commonwealth</i> 2020 case in High Court of Australia

Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth is a High Court of Australia case that held that Aboriginal Australians could not be classified as aliens under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.

<i>Comcare v Banerji</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Comcare v Banerji is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by Comcare against former public servant Michaela Banerji, seeking to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal had declared that termination of her employment was not a reasonable administrative action; once regard was had to the implied freedom of political communication.

<i>Clubb v Edwards</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine.

<i>Lewis v ACT</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Lewis v ACT is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The decision is a significant Australian Tort Law ruling for its holdings on the role of damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Service Act 1999</span>

The Public Service Act 1999 is an Australian law, passed in 1999 by the Howard government that regulates the federal Australian Public Service.

<i>Knight v Victoria</i>

Knight v Victoria is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Stanley v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> (NSW) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Stanley v. Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ Byrne, Elizabeth (12 June 2019). "Store owner who ran controversial repayment system for Aboriginal locals has conviction thrown out". ABC Radio National . Australian Broadcasting Corporation . Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  2. ↑ National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) s 29 Prohibition on engaging in credit activities without a licence .
  3. ↑ Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB Unconscionable conduct in connection with financial services.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Barnett, Katy (20 June 2019). "Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt | Opinions on High". Opinions on High. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  5. ↑ ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18. Judgment summary (PDF), High Court, 12 December 2019
  6. ↑ ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at para. 20
  7. ↑ ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at para. 14
  8. ↑ ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at para. 157
  9. ↑ Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CC Matters the court may have regard to for the purposes of section 12CB.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.