Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v Launceston Superstore Pty Ltd

The case before the court was between the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) and Launceston Superstore Pty Ltd, where the ACCC alleged that Launceston Superstore had contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by making misleading and deceptive statements about the warranty and remedies available to consumers who purchased goods from the store. Launceston Superstore admitted to the contraventions and the parties agreed on certain orders, including declarations, injunctive relief, and a penalty. The court had to determine the appropriate penalty for the contraventions, considering various factors such as the nature and extent of the conduct, whether the conduct was deliberate, the loss caused to the consumer, and the size and financial position of Launceston Superstore.

The court found that Launceston Superstore made three misleading statements to a consumer in 2011, which involved a written statement on a receipt and two oral statements by a sales representative. There was no evidence of deliberate intention to mislead or deceive the consumer, but the conduct contravened the ACL. Launceston Superstore had not been previously found to have contravened the ACL or engaged in similar conduct. The court considered Launceston Superstore's cooperation with the ACCC and its acknowledgment of liability as mitigating factors. The court also took into account the need to deter other retailers from engaging in similar conduct and to encourage a culture of compliance within the industry.

The court decided that an appropriate penalty for Launceston Superstore was $32,000, which took into account the need for general deterrence among corporations making representations to consumers about their rights under the consumer guarantee legislation, and the specific deterrence of Launceston Superstore and other retailers. The court considered Launceston Superstore's size and financial position, as well as the maximum penalty for a body corporate under the ACL, which is $1.1 million. The court also noted that the three contraventions occurred in one course of conduct, and it was appropriate to impose a single penalty for all the contraventions.

In conclusion, the court made the following orders: (1) declarations that Launceston Superstore made misleading statements in contravention of the ACL; (2) injunctive relief to prevent Launceston Superstore from making similar statements in the future; and (3) a penalty of $32,000 for the contraventions. Each party was to bear their costs of the proceeding, and all previous costs orders were vacated. The court considered the mitigating factors and the need for deterrence in determining the appropriate penalty.