Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sought an interim injunction against Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (GQA) to restrain the respondents from commencing debt collection or related activities until the determination of the substantive proceeding. The ACCC alleged that GQA engaged in conduct that constituted misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law. The court was required to determine whether there was a prima facie case for the ACCC's allegations, the balance of convenience, and whether a broader injunction should be granted. The court found that the ACCC had made out a prima facie case against GQA, but the broader injunction sought by the ACCC was refused as it would have caused substantial prejudice to GQA. Instead, a narrower injunction was ordered that limited the injunction to a subset of the relevant consumers who were likely to have claims against GQA.

The court held that the ACCC had made out a prima facie case for the allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct by GQA. The court noted that GQA had engaged in conduct that involved charging consumers for qualifications that they did not receive, and that GQA had made misleading representations to consumers regarding the qualifications they would receive. The court also found that the ACCC had not engaged in any relevant delay in its investigation or in commencing proceedings. However, the court held that the broader injunction sought by the ACCC was not justified on the balance of convenience. The court found that the broader injunction would have caused substantial prejudice to GQA, and that the ACCC had not given an undertaking as to damages. The court also noted that the ACCC's original injunction was too broad as it would have restrained GQA from pursuing legitimate debt recovery mechanisms. The court held that a narrower injunction was justified as it would limit the injunction to a subset of affected consumers who were likely to have claims against GQA.

The court ordered that GQA be restrained from commencing or progressing any debt collection activities in relation to debts said to be owed to it by and against any affected consumer. The court also ordered that GQA be restrained from reporting any affected consumer in relation to such a debt to any credit reporting agency or threatening to bring or bringing legal proceedings against any affected consumer in relation to such a debt. The court further ordered that GQA must send a letter to each debt collection agency to whom it had referred such debts of the type referred to in the order, setting out a short description of the ACCC's application and its outcome, attaching a copy of the order, providing a full list of the affected consumers, and informing the debt collection agency that it must not enforce or seek to recover debts purportedly owed to GQA against any such affected consumer. The court also varied the dates for filing affidavits and documents in the proceeding and listed the matter for a further case management hearing. Finally, the court granted the ACCC leave to file outlines of evidence of any witness who it intended to subpoena to give evidence at trial and ordered that the parties' costs of and incidental to the ACCC's application be costs in the cause.