Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Lukeleo Pty Ltd

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs has brought an action against Lukeleo Pty Ltd and Mr Farrell, its sole director and shareholder, for contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Commissioner alleges that Lukeleo, trading under the name "BIG Pages", engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing to businesses that they had agreed to purchase services from the company. These representations were made in the course of telemarketing calls to prospective customers, where the company sought to sell advertising space in its online business directory. Mr Farrell is alleged to have been knowingly concerned in these contraventions. The Commissioner seeks pecuniary penalties, declarations, injunctions and disqualification orders against Lukeleo and Mr Farrell.

The central legal issues in the case revolve around the interpretation and application of the ACL, specifically sections concerning misleading or deceptive conduct, civil penalty provisions, and the principles guiding the assessment of penalties. The court had to determine whether the representations made by Lukeleo were indeed misleading or deceptive and whether Mr Farrell was knowingly involved in these contraventions. Additionally, the court had to assess the appropriate quantum of penalties to be imposed on Lukeleo and Mr Farrell, considering factors such as deterrence, public protection, and the nature and extent of the contraventions.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Lukeleo had contravened the ACL through misleading or deceptive conduct in its telemarketing practices. The court imposed a penalty of $10,000 for each of the five initial contraventions, $10,000 for the subsequent Whyalla contravention, and $7,500 for each of the four Mid-North and Dernancourt contraventions, totaling $90,000. Regarding Mr Farrell, the court found him knowingly concerned in six contraventions, imposing a penalty of $5,000 for each, totaling $30,000. The court also granted a declaration and injunction against Mr Farrell, prohibiting him from procuring similar contraventions in the future, and disqualified him from managing corporations for 12 months. The court will further hear submissions from the parties on the precise terms of the orders and on costs.

The court will issue detailed orders reflecting its reasons for judgment and will hear further submissions on the form of the orders to be made and the costs.