Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd

Case

[2015] FCA 1263

17 November 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1263 [2015] FCA 1263 17 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a complaint against Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd, alleging that Jetstar falsely represented that certain specific fares displayed on their website, mobile site, and in their subscription emails were firm fares not subject to increase due to a booking and service fee. The court was required to determine whether Jetstar contravened sections 18(1), 29(1)(i), and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law. Jetstar argued that it did not make the representations claimed by the ACCC and that any disclosures made about the booking and service fee were sufficient to prevent misunderstandings. The court found that Jetstar did contravene the Australian Consumer Law by representing that certain fares were firm and not subject to an increase due to the booking and service fee. The court held that Jetstar's conduct was misleading and deceptive in contravention of section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law. The court also found that Jetstar's conduct was likely to mislead the public in contravention of section 29(1)(i) and (m) of the Australian Consumer Law. The court ordered Jetstar to draft declarations, injunctions, and other orders that accurately reflect the court's decisions. The parties were also ordered to confer on the proposed orders and to reserve the question of costs. The proceedings were adjourned to a date to be fixed after 7 December 2015 for the purpose of making final orders and determining the question of costs.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Consumer Law

Legal Concepts

  • Consumer Law – whether, by material presented on low-cost airlines’ websites, mobile sites and in subscription emails, the airlines falsely represented that certain specific fares displayed on their websites, mobile sites and in their subscription emails were firm fares which were not subject to increase by reason of the imposition of a booking and service fee

  • Misrepresentation

  • Compensatory Damages