Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors

The applicants, Freeman and others, sought to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia concerning allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct against National Australia Bank Limited and other respondents. The dispute centred on the respondents' conduct in relation to a financial product known as the "Managed Investment Scheme" (MIS).

The primary legal issues before the High Court of Australia were whether the respondents had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (formerly section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)). Specifically, the court had to consider the nature of the representations made by the respondents concerning the MIS and whether those representations were factually accurate and not misleading.

Gummow and Heydon JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the evidence presented regarding the marketing and sale of the MIS. They applied the established legal principles for determining misleading or deceptive conduct, which require an objective assessment of whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, was likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable member of the target audience. The court considered the specific terms of the MIS, the information provided to investors, and the context in which those representations were made. Their Honours found that the representations made by the respondents were not misleading or deceptive, as they accurately reflected the nature and risks of the investment.

The High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Federal Court.