Pampi and Bolsa

The parties to this proceeding were Pampi (the applicant) and Bolsa (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), specifically in relation to representations made about the quality of certain goods. The matter came before Watts J of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the representations made by the respondent concerning the quality of the goods were misleading or deceptive, thereby constituting a contravention of s 18 of the ACL. This required the Court to consider the nature of the representations, the context in which they were made, and their likely effect on consumers.

Watts J found that the representations made by the respondent were indeed misleading or deceptive. His Honour applied the principles established in cases such as *Taco Company of Australia Inc (t/as Taco Bell) v Taco Bell Pty Ltd* (1984) 155 CLR 546, focusing on whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, was likely to mislead or deceive an ordinary member of the class of persons to whom the representations were directed. The Court considered the objective meaning of the representations and the overall impression they conveyed to consumers, concluding that they did not accurately reflect the quality of the goods.

The Court ordered that the respondent had contravened s 18 of the ACL and made declarations to that effect. Further orders were to be made regarding remedies.