Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Begovic

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from the purchase of a Mitsubishi Triton vehicle by Mr Begovic, which was advertised with a fuel consumption label. Mr Begovic alleged that the actual fuel consumption of his vehicle substantially exceeded the figures stated on the label, leading him to commence proceedings claiming Mitsubishi engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The central question was whether Mitsubishi had engaged in such conduct, given that the fuel consumption label was applied in compliance with Commonwealth legislation, specifically the *Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989* (Cth) and the *Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 81/02 – Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles) 2008* (Cth).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law by applying a fuel consumption label to a vehicle, where the specific contents of that label were prescribed by law. The court was required to determine if there was an "apparent conflict" between the general prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct and the specific legislative requirement to apply a label with prescribed content, and how to reconcile these provisions.

The High Court reasoned that where a statute mandates specific conduct, such as applying a label with prescribed content, that conduct cannot simultaneously be considered misleading or deceptive under a general prohibition, provided the statutory requirements are met. The court found that the Australian Consumer Law, being a general provision, should not override a specific legislative scheme that compels particular representations. In this instance, the fuel consumption label was applied in strict compliance with the Australian Design Rule 81/02, which dictated the content and manner of its display. Therefore, the appellants were compelled by law to make the representations contained on the label, and this mandatory conduct could not be characterised as misleading or deceptive.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and dismissing Mr Begovic's application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application for special leave to appeal and the appeal to the High Court.