Can you Mislead or Deceive Someone if You Have Honestly Relied on Your Lawyers Advice? A Case Study on ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd
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.
Franchising Update: Peak Physique found liable for representations which induced purchase of franchise
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.
Collective bargaining for franchisees: how to negotiate better terms together without raising competition concerns
Franchising Update: Franchisor liable for Franchisee non payments of employee entitlements - Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd
On 4 June 2024 the Federal Court of Australia handed down the decision of Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCA. This decision resulted in the Fair Work Ombudsman penalising the Australian franchisor of the 85 Degrees brand $1.44 million for its “systemic failure to ensure compliance within its franchise network” which included underpayments at several of their Sydney franchisee outlets.
