Carey v Commissioner for Consumer Protection

The case of Carey v Commissioner for Consumer Protection involved a dispute regarding false or misleading representations made by a real estate agent. The Director, acting under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), brought an action against the agent for allegedly breaching s 81 of the Act. The court had to determine whether the director could have avoided committing the offence through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and if so, what standard of'reasonable diligence' applied.

The primary legal issue was whether the director could be held liable for the false or misleading representations made by the real estate agent, and if so, what level of care and attention was required to avoid such liability. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered the appropriate standard of diligence that should be applied to a director in this context.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the director could have avoided committing the offence by exercising reasonable diligence. The court found that the standard of'reasonable diligence' required under s 81 of the Act was not a stringent one, but rather a reasonable standard of care and attention. The court emphasised that the director's role and responsibilities should be taken into account when determining the appropriate standard of diligence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the notice of contention was also dismissed. The decision confirmed that directors of companies can be held liable for false or misleading representations made by their agents, but only if they fail to exercise a reasonable standard of diligence in monitoring and managing their business activities.