Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Institute of Professional Education Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against the Australian Institute of Professional Education Pty Ltd (AIPE) alleging breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). AIPE, which provided online vocational education training courses, was accused of engaging in a system of conduct or pattern of behaviour that was unconscionable. The ACCC alleged that AIPE visited low socio-economic communities, made false or misleading representations about the courses being free, offered inducements, failed to explain the nature of VET FEE-HELP obligations, and did not assess the adequacy of students' skills to complete the courses. The ACCC further alleged that AIPE did not sufficiently train and monitor its agents, and that these actions constituted unconscionable conduct in relation to 13 individual consumers.

The court was required to determine whether AIPE's conduct contravened sections 21, 76, 78, 18, and 29 of the ACL. Specifically, the court needed to decide if AIPE engaged in unconscionable conduct or a pattern of behaviour, if it contravened the unsolicited consumer agreement provisions, and if it engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also had to assess whether the evidence showed a system of conduct or pattern of behaviour that established unconscionable conduct in relation to the target group of consumers.

The court found that AIPE's conduct did contravene the ACL. It held that AIPE's actions amounted to unconscionable conduct and a pattern of behaviour, particularly in relation to low socio-economic communities. The court found that AIPE's agents made misleading or deceptive representations to specific consumers, which was part of a wider system of conduct or pattern of behaviour. The court also determined that AIPE contravened the unsolicited consumer agreement provisions and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

The orders made by the court required the parties to furnish agreed or competing orders within 14 days, and a case management hearing was to be listed on a date to be fixed. Entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.