Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Melbourne South Eastern Real Estate Pty Ltd

The case of Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Melbourne South Eastern Real Estate Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria and Melbourne South Eastern Real Estate Pty Ltd (MSE). The Director alleged that MSE contravened consumer law by underquoting prices in property listings on the internet and using "blind pricing" to attract potential buyers. MSE admitted to the contraventions, leading to the court's determination of appropriate orders, including penalties, declarations, and compliance measures. The court considered the extent of the contraventions, the need for public notice, and the appropriateness of the proposed penalties and declarations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the orders proposed by consent were appropriate, the form of the necessary declarations, and the appropriate penalty to be imposed on MSE for its admitted contraventions of consumer law. The court also needed to determine if the penalty should be imposed for each property sold as a separate contravention and whether the total penalty should be proportionate to the extensive nature of the contraventions.

The court found that MSE's conduct, which occurred over 17 months and involved 20 properties, was part of a conscious strategy to attract more consumers by underquoting prices. The court decided that the proposed penalty of $300,000, split into 20 individual penalties of $15,000 each, was appropriate. The court also made amendments to the form of the declarations and the public notice, considering it necessary to ensure the declarations reflected the evidence and the appropriate period of the contraventions. The court concluded that the total penalty was proportionate to the extensive nature of the contraventions and the seriousness of the breaches.

The final orders included a requirement for MSE to contribute $30,000 towards the costs of the proceeding, payable by 30 January 2019. The parties were to be provided with the court's proposed form of all orders and given an opportunity to be heard before the orders were made. The court's reasoning was based on the extensive nature of the contraventions, the conscious strategy employed by MSE, and the need for appropriate penalties and declarations to deter future contraventions.