Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd

Melway Publishing Pty Ltd (Melway) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the interpretation of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). The dispute arose from Melway's publication of a street directory which included a map of the suburb of Glen Waverley. Robert Hicks Pty Ltd (Hicks), a real estate agent operating in Glen Waverley, alleged that Melway had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 52 by including a map that depicted a particular street, "Waverley Road," in a way that suggested it was a public road when, in fact, it was a private road. Hicks claimed this misrepresentation caused it loss.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Melway's publication of the map constituted misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the depiction of Waverley Road on the map, in the context of its publication by a street directory, was capable of conveying a misleading impression to consumers, and if so, whether Melway had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive.

The High Court, by majority, held that Melway had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The majority reasoned that a street directory's purpose is to provide a representation of the physical layout of streets, and the inclusion of Waverley Road on the map, even if it was a private road, did not inherently convey a representation that it was a public road. The court emphasised that the ordinary reasonable reader of a street directory would understand that the map was a representation of the physical existence of a thoroughfare and not a representation of its legal status or public accessibility. The conduct must be assessed by reference to the likely effect on the public, and in this instance, the depiction was not misleading.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Federal Court were set aside.