Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Unique International College (No 7)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission initiated proceedings against Unique International College, with the Federal Court hearing the case. The Commission sought declarations that the College had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether declarations should be made prior to the hearing on relief or if they should be deferred until after. Another issue was the appropriate form and level of detail required in the declarations. The Court found that, given the circumstances, including the possibility of further discovery and a lengthy hearing on relief, it was preferable to make the declarations at that stage. The Court rejected the argument that making declarations before the hearing on relief would multiply the costs of litigation for both parties, as it would provide a clear avenue for the Respondent to appeal against the Court's findings on liability.

The Court examined the reasoning in Valve, where Edelman J outlined reasons for refusing to make declarations before a hearing on relief. These reasons included misconceptions about the effect of making declarations, difficulties associated with making declarations independently of other remedies, and the potential for further appeals. However, the Court concluded that, in this case, the Respondent's approach was preferable. The Court also considered the High Court's caution against lower courts hearing only one subset of triable issues at a time and the possibility of difficulties if the High Court were asked to consider a special leave application before a hearing on penalties had taken place. Ultimately, the Court decided to grant declaratory relief at that stage, even though there would likely be a further hearing on relief.

The Court decided that the declarations should be made in the short form proposed by the Respondent rather than the long form proposed by the Applicants. The Court found that the short form was appropriate in this case and would not result in any injustice or unfairness to the parties. The Court also considered the level of detail required in the declarations, concluding that the short form was sufficient and would not prejudice the parties' rights. The Court ordered that the matter be listed for a further case management hearing on 13 November 2017 at 9:30 am and that costs be reserved.