Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sought to obtain freezing orders against Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (GQA), its CEO Mr Adam Mazen Wadi, and Ms Lama Al-Natour, in relation to alleged contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the power to grant freezing orders under section 137F(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) applied, and if so, whether the ACCC was required to provide an undertaking as to damages in accordance with Division 4, Part 7, Chapter 2 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

The Court considered the legal principles surrounding freezing orders and the relevant statutory provisions. It was established that the ACCC had standing to apply for such orders and that the court had the authority to grant them under section 137F(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act. Furthermore, the Court found that the ACCC was not required to provide an undertaking as to damages, as the primary focus of the application was to prevent dissipation of assets and not to compensate for losses. The Court also noted that the ACCC had made efforts to minimise prejudice to the respondents by allowing for broad and large monetary exclusions from the freezing orders.

The Court found that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets, as the respondents had not provided sufficient evidence of their financial position, had family and assets overseas, and had made numerous transfers of significant sums of money to recipients abroad. Additionally, the potential adverse effects of the Australian Skills Quality Agency's (ASQA) Notice of Intention to deregister certain RTOs associated with GQA posed a risk of consumers being unable to receive services from GQA. Consequently, the Court concluded that the ACCC had demonstrated a good arguable case for the issuance of freezing orders.

The Court issued the freezing orders in the terms that had been foreshadowed with counsel. The orders prohibited the respondents from removing assets from Australia or disposing of, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with or diminishing the value of any of their assets, whether held in Australia or overseas. The orders also required the respondents to provide information about their worldwide assets and payments made between 1 January 2014 and 5 August 2016, with certain exceptions for living expenses, pilgrimage costs, and reasonable legal expenses. The costs of the application were reserved, and the orders were applicable to certain third parties outside Australia, subject to their compliance with local laws.