Yorke v Lucas

In *Yorke v Lucas*, the High Court of Australia considered the liability of an individual for contravening section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)), which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct. The dispute arose from representations made by Mr Lucas, an employee of a company, to Mr Yorke concerning the turnover of a business the company was selling. Mr Yorke alleged that these representations were misleading and deceptive, causing him loss. The central question was whether Mr Lucas could be held personally liable for the company's contravention of section 52, and by extension, whether liability under section 75B of the Act required knowledge of the contravention itself.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether a person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures a contravention of section 52 by a corporation, or is knowingly concerned in such a contravention, is liable under section 75B of the Act, even if they did not intend to contravene the Act. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether, for liability to attach under section 75B, the alleged aider or abettor must have knowledge that their conduct constituted a contravention of section 52, or whether knowledge of the facts that constitute the contravention is sufficient.

The Court reasoned that section 75B imposes liability on persons who are knowingly concerned in or party to a contravention. It was held that "knowingly concerned" does not require knowledge that the conduct amounts to a contravention of the Act. Instead, it requires knowledge of the facts or circumstances that make the conduct misleading or deceptive. The Court affirmed that liability under section 75B is not dependent on the intention to contravene the Act, but rather on the intention to do the acts which constitute the contravention. Therefore, Mr Lucas, having been knowingly concerned in the making of the misleading representations, was liable for the contravention of section 52 by his employer. The appeal was dismissed with costs.