Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) (No 3)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) in relation to alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The central issue before the court was whether the college's enrolment practices and conduct were in breach of the ACL. This involved examining whether the college engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and whether certain enrolments constituted unsolicited consumer agreements. The court was also tasked with determining whether certain individuals associated with the college were "knowingly concerned" in the conduct and whether the conduct of certain employees and agents could be attributed to the college.

The court found that the college engaged in unconscionable conduct by altering its enrolment and withdrawal processes, which weakened protections for consumers and led to a significant number of enrolments that did not result in any educational benefit. The college also failed to provide adequate information about the Vocational Fee-Help (VFH) scheme and the true cost of courses, leading to substantial debts incurred by uncontactable students. The court further found that specific conduct by the college's representatives, such as misrepresenting the cost of courses and offering free laptops as inducements, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL. The court also ruled that certain enrolments constituted unsolicited consumer agreements and that the conduct of the college's agents was attributable to the college.

The court concluded that the college engaged in unconscionable conduct and made misleading or deceptive representations to consumers. It was determined that certain individuals were knowingly concerned in the conduct, and the conduct of certain employees and agents was attributed to the college. The court ordered the parties to bring in agreed or competing orders reflecting the findings, with a focus on costs and further conduct of the proceeding.