Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd and Haviv Pty Ltd brought an action against Howards Storage World Pty Ltd, Howards Group Pty Ltd, and Howards Holdings Pty Ltd. The applicants sought a declaration that certain agreements entered into with the respondents were void, along with various other reliefs, due to the alleged contravention of the Australian Consumer Law by the respondents. The central dispute revolved around the contention that the agreements were unfair pursuant to section 23 of the ACL and contained a provision that was deemed to be against public policy under section 24.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agreements in question were void and unenforceable under the ACL. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreements were unfair, which would render them void, and if any of the provisions contravened public policy. The applicants argued that the agreements were unfair due to the respondents' failure to disclose material facts and the significant price discrepancies in the agreements. Furthermore, the applicants contended that the rebate agreements amounted to a contravention of public policy.

The court examined the nature and content of the agreements, as well as the surrounding circumstances, to determine if they were unfair. It held that the agreements were not unfair because the applicants were sophisticated businesses that had engaged in arm's length negotiations with the respondents. The court also found that the rebate agreements did not contravene public policy as they were not illegal or in breach of any statutory provision. Consequently, the applicants' claims were dismissed. The court ordered that the applicants bear the costs associated with specific claims, while the respondents were to bear the costs of the proceeding in other respects.