ACR Roofing Pty Ltd v The Queen

ACR Roofing Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had affirmed a judgment of a single judge of that court. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for contraventions of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the respondent) alleged that the appellant had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing that it was a licensed roofing contractor when it was not.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant's conduct in representing itself as a licensed roofing contractor, when it was not, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). A further issue was whether the appellant's representations were made in trade or commerce, and if so, whether those representations were misleading or deceptive.

McHugh and Hayne JJ, in a joint judgment, held that the appellant's representations were indeed made in trade or commerce. They reasoned that the appellant's business was the provision of roofing services, and the representations were made in the course of carrying on that business. The court further found that the representations were misleading or deceptive because they conveyed to consumers the impression that the appellant possessed a licence that was a prerequisite for carrying out roofing work in the relevant jurisdiction, thereby implying a level of competence and compliance with regulatory standards that the appellant did not possess. The legal principle applied was that a representation that a person possesses a particular qualification or licence, when they do not, is likely to mislead or deceive consumers about their status and capabilities.

The appeal was dismissed.