Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Le Sands Restaurant and Le Sands Café Pty Ltd t/as Signature Brasserie
Case
•
[2011] FCA 105
•8 February 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Le Sands Restaurant and Le Sands Café Pty Ltd t/as Signature Brasserie [2011] FCA 105
[2011] FCA 105
8 February 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against Le Sands Restaurant and Le Sands Café Pty Ltd t/as Signature Brasserie for alleged breaches of s 53C of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The ACCC alleged that the respondent had failed to specify the single price for the supply of goods or services in a prominent way on their menus, which included a surcharge for Sundays and public holidays. The matter was resolved through mediation, leading to an agreed statement of facts and proposed declarations and orders. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the penalty proposed by the ACCC was appropriate given the nature of the conduct, the facts of the case, and the penalties imposed in similar cases.
The court considered the agreed facts, which detailed the respondent’s conduct of listing prices on their menus with additional surcharges for Sundays and public holidays, and the ACCC’s complaint and subsequent actions. The court also took into account the penalties imposed in other similar cases, such as the Gourmet Goody’s case and AI Constructions, to assess the quantum of the penalty. The court found that the penalty of $15,000 was appropriate, taking into account the nature of the conduct and the importance of ensuring compliance with the Act.
Based on the agreed facts and the considerations outlined, the court was satisfied that there was an appropriate factual and legal foundation for the making of the declarations and orders proposed by the parties. The court determined that the penalty of $15,000 was appropriate and ordered the respondent to pay that amount. The court also ordered the making of declarations as proposed by the parties, which included acknowledging the breaches of s 53C and agreeing to comply with the requirements of the Act in the future.
The court considered the agreed facts, which detailed the respondent’s conduct of listing prices on their menus with additional surcharges for Sundays and public holidays, and the ACCC’s complaint and subsequent actions. The court also took into account the penalties imposed in other similar cases, such as the Gourmet Goody’s case and AI Constructions, to assess the quantum of the penalty. The court found that the penalty of $15,000 was appropriate, taking into account the nature of the conduct and the importance of ensuring compliance with the Act.
Based on the agreed facts and the considerations outlined, the court was satisfied that there was an appropriate factual and legal foundation for the making of the declarations and orders proposed by the parties. The court determined that the penalty of $15,000 was appropriate and ordered the respondent to pay that amount. The court also ordered the making of declarations as proposed by the parties, which included acknowledging the breaches of s 53C and agreeing to comply with the requirements of the Act in the future.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Competition Law
Legal Concepts
-
Trade Practices
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Civil Penalty
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australian Energy Regulator v CAM Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 737
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v viagogo AG
[2019] FCA 544
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1