Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Unique International College Pty Ltd (Imposition of Penalty)
Case
•
[2019] FCA 1773
•31 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Unique International College Pty Ltd (Imposition of Penalty) [2019] FCA 1773
[2019] FCA 1773
31 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought an action against Unique International College Pty Ltd, seeking the imposition of civil pecuniary penalties for contravening the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Unique was found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and breaches related to unsolicited consumer agreements by offering free laptops to consumers upon enrolment in online courses. The court assessed the penalties based on the nature and extent of the contraventions, the circumstances, and the absence of previous convictions for similar conduct. The court also considered the vulnerability of the consumers involved, who were from remote communities with low literacy, technological capability, or conditions affecting learning.
The key legal issues were the appropriate quantum of the penalty and whether certain contraventions should be considered under the maximum penalty provisions. The court noted that while some findings of unconscionable conduct were overturned on appeal, the contraventions related to six individual consumers were upheld. The court found that Unique had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the ACL, did not train its staff about compliance, and had no corporate culture promoting compliance. The court also found that Unique did not display relevant cooperation or contrition.
The court imposed a penalty of $4,165,000, finding it to be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The court considered the maximum penalties which could be imposed, the principles relevant to pecuniary penalties, and the specific contraventions found against Unique. The court concluded that the penalty was reasonably proportionate to the wrongdoing and ordered Unique to pay the penalty within 28 days. The matter was also listed for a case management hearing to address the issue of costs.
The key legal issues were the appropriate quantum of the penalty and whether certain contraventions should be considered under the maximum penalty provisions. The court noted that while some findings of unconscionable conduct were overturned on appeal, the contraventions related to six individual consumers were upheld. The court found that Unique had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the ACL, did not train its staff about compliance, and had no corporate culture promoting compliance. The court also found that Unique did not display relevant cooperation or contrition.
The court imposed a penalty of $4,165,000, finding it to be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The court considered the maximum penalties which could be imposed, the principles relevant to pecuniary penalties, and the specific contraventions found against Unique. The court concluded that the penalty was reasonably proportionate to the wrongdoing and ordered Unique to pay the penalty within 28 days. The matter was also listed for a case management hearing to address the issue of costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
Legal Concepts
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Breach of Contract
-
Misrepresentation
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2025] FCA 395
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
1