Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v; Woolworths Limited (No 2)

In the matter of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Limited (No 2), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sought declarations and orders against Woolworths Limited, alleging that an advertisement published between 22 February and 1 March 2001 was misleading and deceptive in breach of sections 52 and 53(eb) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The ACCC claimed that the advertisement, which related to the opening of the Cargill meat processing plant in Tamworth, falsely represented that Woolworths supported the local economy by sourcing beef from local suppliers. Woolworths initially offered to settle the proceeding by publishing a corrective advertisement, dismissing the proceeding with no order as to costs, and providing an undertaking not to repeat the misleading representations. However, the ACCC rejected this offer and insisted on specific orders similar to those outlined in the initial application.

The court had to decide on the form of declaratory relief, the appropriateness of an injunction, the necessity for a corrective advertisement, and the costs associated with the proceeding. Regarding the declaration, the court found that a declaration of contravention of both sections 52 and 53(eb) of the Act was warranted. On the injunction, the court determined that it was not necessary as there was no evidence of a threat of repetition, and Woolworths had already stated its intention not to repeat the advertisement. As for the corrective advertisement, the court questioned its utility given the significant time that had passed since the original advertisement and the likelihood that readers would not retain specific misleading impressions. Finally, the court ordered that Woolworths pay the ACCC's costs of the proceeding, except for the costs of the hearing on 20 August 2002, which were to be borne by the parties themselves.