Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Hocking Stuart (Richmond) Pty Ltd

The case of Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Hocking Stuart (Richmond) Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute involved allegations of underquoting of prices to potential purchasers by Hocking Stuart Richmond, a real estate agency, in contravention of consumer law. The Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria sought penalties and other orders against Hocking Stuart Richmond for admitted contraventions.

The primary legal issues the court had to address included determining the appropriate level of penalty to serve both general and specific deterrence, considering the principles of the "course of conduct" and "totality," and assessing the financial impact of the penalty on Hocking Stuart Richmond. The court also had to consider whether the sought orders, including a publication order and costs, were appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that Hocking Stuart Richmond's conduct warranted a substantial penalty to ensure general deterrence, despite the company being a small local business. The court imposed a penalty of $30,000 for each contravention, totaling $330,000, and also considered the potential additional costs of proceedings, which could amount to $80,000 to $90,000. The court allowed Hocking Stuart Richmond the opportunity to pay the penalty by instalments, acknowledging the substantial financial impact on the company. The court further ordered that the parties confer to agree on the final orders or submit written submissions if they could not agree.

In conclusion, the court ordered the parties to confer and submit agreed orders or, if unable to agree, to provide short written submissions and proposed orders within 14 days. This decision underscores the importance of considering both deterrence and proportionality in imposing penalties under consumer law.