Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dukemaster Pty Ltd

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against Dukemaster Pty Ltd, a property management company, and its director, Ms. Wong, for alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The ACCC alleged that Dukemaster engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing to tenants in the Food Court of the Paramount Centre that the rental it proposed was the current market rental or below the market value, and that the rental paid by some tenants was less than or equal to the rental payable by other tenants when that was not the case. The ACCC sought declarations of contravention, injunctions, orders for disclosure, and compliance orders. The court was required to decide whether Dukemaster and Ms. Wong contravened sections 51AC, 52, and 53(e) of the TPA, and if so, what orders should be made to remedy the contraventions.

The court found that Dukemaster contravened sections 52 and 53(e) of the TPA by making misleading representations to tenants about the market rental and rental payable by other tenants. However, the court did not find that Dukemaster contravened section 51AC of the TPA because it could not be established that Dukemaster had engaged in a practice of misleading conduct in the course of trade or commerce. The court also found that Ms. Wong was liable for the contraventions because she was a director of Dukemaster and had knowledge of the misleading conduct. The court made orders for injunctions, damages, compliance, and costs. The injunctions restrained Dukemaster from making misleading representations to tenants about the market rental or rental payable by other tenants unless it had a reasonable basis for making the representation. The damages were awarded to the tenants who suffered loss or damage because of the misleading conduct. The compliance orders required Dukemaster to establish a compliance and education program for its employees and Ms. Wong to attend annual training about the TPA. The costs were awarded to the ACCC.

In conclusion, the court found that Dukemaster and Ms. Wong contravened sections 52 and 53(e) of the TPA by making misleading representations to tenants about the market rental and rental payable by other tenants. The court made orders for injunctions, damages, compliance, and costs to remedy the contraventions. The orders were designed to prevent Dukemaster from engaging in similar conduct in the future and to compensate the tenants who suffered loss or damage because of the misleading conduct.