Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2)

This case involved the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) bringing proceedings against Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (GQA) and its director, Mr Wadi, for various breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC sought pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders against both respondents, as well as an interlocutory injunction to restrain GQA from pursuing debt recovery activities against certain consumers. The central legal issues revolved around whether GQA and Mr Wadi had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, unfair contract terms, and unconscionable conduct, as well as whether Mr Wadi was accessorially liable for GQA’s actions. The court had to determine the appropriate standard of proof and whether the ACCC could proceed against GQA, which had been placed in liquidation during the course of the proceedings.

The court found that the ACCC had established the required elements of its claims by clear and cogent proof. It held that GQA and Mr Wadi had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, including making false or misleading representations about refunds and eligibility. The court also found that GQA had included an unfair contract term and had engaged in unconscionable conduct, though not necessarily in relation to the individual consumers identified by the ACCC. Additionally, the court determined that Mr Wadi was accessorially liable for GQA’s contraventions of the ACL, having aided, abetted, counselled, or procured those contraventions and being directly and indirectly knowingly concerned in them.

The court granted the ACCC leave to proceed against GQA under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). It also issued an interlocutory injunction limiting GQA’s debt collection activities against certain consumers. The case was adjourned to allow the parties to file and serve short minutes of orders and to address the orders necessary to give effect to the court’s reasons.

In summary, the Federal Court found that GQA and Mr Wadi had breached the ACL in multiple ways and established that the ACCC could proceed against GQA despite its liquidation. The case was adjourned for further orders and the reservation of costs.