Legal news
Withholding information whilst negotiating agreements can amount to misleading and deceptive conduct. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Sec New Line Pty Ltd v Muffin Break Pty Ltd provides important guidance on when silence will become deceptive, specifically in the context of lease and franchising renewals.
In an previous article discussing the ACCC’s enforcement priorities for 2024-25, we noted that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has continued to monitor strict compliance with small business codes of conduct, including the Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code).
In particular, the ACCC had pursued UltraTune, for contempt of Court when Ultratune failed to comply with orders made by the court requiring Ultratune to take specific actions. On 28 January 2025, UltraTune’s appeal was dismissed by the Full Federal Court.
UltraTune’s story serves as an important reminder to ensure active monitoring of business’ compliance with all the obligations including those imposed on them by the law or court order and those that they might voluntarily agree to undertake.
If your business is restructuring, contractual rights triggered solely by the restructure or financial distress may be rendered unenforceable under section 454N of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This statutory protection can help a business stabilise and continue trading through difficult times. This article reviews a recent case of Okami SA Newton Pty Ltd v Newton SC Pty Ltd which considered the operation of this section.
Active Super was found to have made false or misleading representations by using unequivocal language, and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public in relation to investments it made.
The case provides further insights into the latest developments on ASIC’s ongoing greenwashing enforcement action.
Last year, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Australian Securities Investment Commission v Vanguard [2024] FCA 308. This case serves as a reminder that business who are making sustainable investment claims must ensure that those claims are not misleading or deceptive in nature.
The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.
The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.
The specific wording of a contract is crucial to its interpretation and may be beneficial or a trap to parties. Many parties fail to understand the implications that the well-known phrase ‘subject to contract’ will have on their agreements. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 is the leading Australian case which examines the consequences of certain wording on parties to a contract, and whether such wording leads to an enforceable and binding contract.
The most common basis upon which creditors make an application to wind up a company and appoint liquidators is upon the non-compliance with a Creditor’s Statutory Demand. If the debtor company ignores the Creditor’s Statutory Demand and no payment or compromise is reached then the company is presumed insolvent, paving the way to wind up the company.
This article contains an explanation of the steps required when lodging an application for winding up in these circumstances, as well as some helpful tips to navigate the process effectively.
If you have been declared bankrupt, or are looking to recover debt from an individual or company that has been declared bankrupt, you may be wondering what happens to debts following a declaration of bankruptcy.
This article sets out what debts are and are not recoverable from a bankrupt person, including specific debts which survive bankruptcy and remain recoverable by creditors even after the bankruptcy ends.
On 1 August 2024, the Magistrates Court of Queensland found Peak Physique Franchisor Group Pty Ltd (Peak Physique) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and was in breach of section 18 Australian Consumer Law through its conduct which induced the purchase of one of their premises through representations of ongoing support to the franchisee and the profitability of the franchise purchased.
