Misleading or deceptive conduct

Last updated

Misleading or deceptive conduct (often referred to as just misleading conduct) is a doctrine of Australian law.

Contents

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law , [1] which is found in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, [2] [3] prohibits conduct by corporations in trade or commerce which is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. The states and territories of Australia each have Fair Trading Legislation either containing similar provisions in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct by individuals, or simply applies the federal law to the state or territory. [4] Section 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in financial services. [5]

The doctrine aims primarily to provide consumer protection by preventing businesses from misleading their customers. However, it extends to all situations in the course of trade or commerce. A range of remedies are available in the event of misleading or deceptive conduct.

Application

The prohibition on misleading conduct is set out in section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law: [1]

"A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

The Australian Consumer Law defines conduct as:

"...doing or refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, and understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant;" [1] : s 2(2)(a) 

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law essentially mirrors the previous ban on misleading or deceptive conduct in section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. [6]

The elements required to establish misleading or deceptive conduct are:

  1. the impugned conduct was done in trade or commerce;
  2. the impugned conduct was, in all the circumstances, misleading or deceptive;
  3. the claimant relied on the conduct; and
  4. as a result of its reliance on the conduct, the claimant suffered a loss.

Trade or commerce

"Trade or commerce" is given its ordinary construction, and applies not only to transactions between corporations and consumers, but to anyone providing or acquiring goods or services. [7] However, purely private or domestic transactions will not be captured within the ambit of section 18. [8]

Misleading or deceptive

Unlike related doctrines in contract or tort law, such as the tort of deceit and misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct applies to any conduct that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive, and does not require the making of a representation. [9] : at [31] 

Conduct is likely to mislead or deceive where there is a "real and not remote" chance that it will mislead or deceive, which can be true even where the probability of misleading or deceiving is less than 50%. [10] When the allegedly misleading or deceptive conduct is directed towards the public at large, the relevant reaction is that of the ordinary or reasonable members of the class of prospective purchasers. [11] If the conduct is directed at specific individuals, the conduct as a whole is relevant, considering the nature of the parties and transaction. [10]

Reliance and intent

Misleading or deceptive conduct is a "strict liability" offence, in that it does not matter whether the conduct was intended to mislead or deceive, [12] or even whether the claimant could reasonably have protected its interests. [9] : at [42]  This means that so long as there is an element of reliance on the part of the claimant, a respondent could be found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct even if they had every reason to believe that their representations were true.

The reason for strict liability in this instance that a person making a representation is always better placed to know about whether or not it is true than the person relying on the representation, so the law is constructed to shift the onus of ensuring that the representation is true onto the person making it. This is in contrast to the traditional common law principle of "caveat emptor" or "let the buyer beware". [13]

Loss

As a tort-style offence applying to cases of "pure economic loss" (as opposed to physical harm), a cause of action in misleading or deceptive conduct will only accrue from the time that any loss is suffered – i.e. conduct could be misleading and deceptive, and a person could rely on it and still have no claim. There would only be a claim when that person suffers a loss as a result of the conduct. [14]

Other relevant matters

Individuals may be ancillary liable for breaches of s18 if they are "knowingly concerned" in the breach. [1] : s 237 

Where conduct is a representation about the future (as opposed to a representation about present facts), then that conduct will be taken to be misleading if the person making it cannot show they made the representation on reasonable grounds. [1] : s 4  In these situations, representations about the future are presumed to be misleading, and the burden of proof is on the person making the representation to produce evidence to show that they had reasonable grounds.

Contractual modification

Parties to a contract cannot exclude liability for misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Terms that purport to do so will be unenforceable to protect the public interest in ensuring that statutory remedies are available to persons who are misled or deceived into entering an agreement. As was stated in reference to section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), [6] the modern equivalent of which is section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law:

49. Irrespective of the construction of these two special conditions it does not matter ultimately whether the impugned conduct with which this case is concerned falls literally within them or not. Section 52 is a section in the consumer protection provisions of an Act concerned to protect the public from misleading or deceptive conduct and unfair trade practices which may result in contravention of the Act. It has been held that exclusion clauses, of which special conditions 6 and 7 are examples, cannot operate to defeat claims under s. 52. It may be ... that such exclusion clauses will generally be ineffective because they cannot break the nexus between the conduct in contravention of s. 52 and the making of the agreement in issue. ... 50. There are wider objections to allowing effect to such clauses. Otherwise the operation of the Act, a public policy statute, could be ousted by private agreement. Parliament passed the Act to stamp out unfair or improper conduct in trade or in commerce; it would be contrary to public policy for special conditions such as those with which this contract was concerned to deny or prohibit a statutory remedy for offending conduct under the Act. [9] : at [49]-[50] 

Exceptions

Despite the strict liability nature of the offence, a person will not be deemed to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct where: [10] : at [123] 

  1. the circumstances make it apparent that the person is not the source of the information and that it expressly or impliedly disclaims any belief in its truth or falsity and is merely passing on the information for what it is worth; [15]
  2. the person, while believing the information, expressly or impliedly disclaims personal responsibility for what it conveys, for example, by disclaiming personal knowledge; or
  3. the person, while believing the information, ensures that its name is not used in association with the information.

Remedies

Fines

There are no pecuniary penalties available for a breach of section 18. However, for a breach of many of the related provisions in the Australian Consumer Law, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) can seek pecuniary penalties of up to $1.1 million from corporations and $220,000 from individuals.

Damages

A victim of misleading or deceptive conduct is only entitled to damages (i.e., monetary compensation) if they have suffered loss or damage as a result of the conduct. The measure of loss or damage here is generally the same as it is in contract law or tort law. Since 2004, if a victim contributed to the loss or damage that they suffered, then the court can reduce the amount of damages that they are awarded, in a similar fashion to the reduction of damages in a negligence claim if the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence. However, if the person engaging in the conduct intended to mislead or deceive, or was fraudulent in their conduct, then the courts cannot reduce the damages. [2] : s 82(1B) 

There is a limitation period of six years on actions for damages. [1] : s 236(2) 

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian labour law</span> Rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia

Australian labour law sets the rights of working people, the role of trade unions, and democracy at work, and the duties of employers, across the Commonwealth and in states. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission creates a national minimum wage and oversees National Employment Standards for fair hours, holidays, parental leave and job security. The FWC also creates modern awards that apply to most sectors of work, numbering 150 in 2024, with minimum pay scales, and better rights for overtime, holidays, paid leave, and superannuation for a pension in retirement. Beyond this floor of rights, trade unions and employers often create enterprise bargaining agreements for better wages and conditions in their workplaces. In 2024, collective agreements covered 15% of employees, while 22% of employees were classified as "casual", meaning that they lose many protections other workers have. Australia's laws on the right to take collective action are among the most restrictive in the developed world, and Australia does not have a general law protecting workers' rights to vote and elect worker directors on corporation boards as do most other wealthy OECD countries.

<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">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The subclause is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

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

The law of contract in Australia is similar to the contract law of other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions, but differences from other jurisdictions have arisen over time because of statute law and divergent development of common law in the High Court, particularly since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual term</span> Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of state elections are heard by the supreme court of that state, sitting as that state's court of disputed returns.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Trading Act 1986</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Fair Trading Act 1986 is a statute of New Zealand, developed as complementary legislation to the Commerce Act 1986. Its purpose is to encourage competition and to protect consumers/customers from misleading and deceptive conduct and unfair trade practices.

<i>Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd</i>

Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to standing of third parties with no direct involvement.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<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.

Unfair dismissal in Australia is the right to not be unfairly dismissed from work in the Fair Work Act 2009. This is a core part of Australian labour law, and refers to an unlawful act of employment termination due to it being an unfair action on the employee by the employer.

<i>Berry v CCL Secure Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, The Australian Consumer Law.
  2. 1 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
  3. ↑ formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
  4. ↑ Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 28; Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) s 8; Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 16; Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) s 14; Fair Trading Act 1990 (Tas) s 14; Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) s 10; Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act 1990 (NT) s 27; Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 s 7.
  5. ↑ Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
  6. 1 2 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.
  7. ↑ Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited v Nelson [1990] HCA 17 , (1990) 169 CLR 594; see also Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59 , (2006) 225 CLR 553.
  8. ↑ Re Paul Smolonogov and Adrian Lapardin v Raymond Lawrence O'Brien and Barbara Annette O'Brien [1982] FCA 189 , (1982) 67 FLR 311.
  9. 1 2 3 Re Henjo Investments Pty Limited [1988] FCA 40.
  10. 1 2 3 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60 , (2004) 218 CLR 592.
  11. ↑ Campomar Sociedad Limited v Nike International Limited [2000] HCA 12 , (2000) 202 CLR 45.
  12. ↑ Yorke v Lucas [1985] HCA 65 at [11], (1985) 158 CLR 661.
  13. ↑ Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36 , (1999) 198 CLR 180 per Callinan J at [114]-[118].
  14. ↑ HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 54 , (2004) 217 CLR 640 at pp. 665–6 (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Heydon JJ).
  15. ↑ Google v ACCC [2013] HCA 1 , (2004) 249 CLR 435.
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.