Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 DECEMBER 2017

Consumer watchdog on the hunt for unfair terms in B2B contracts

Pointon Partners
Explore more from Pointon Partners

The decision was a test case for the ACCC to enforce its newly expanded unfair contract terms regime to small business.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Brigid O’Dwyer
Brigid O’Dwyer
Lachlan Chisholm (Formerly With Pointon Partners)
Lachlan Chisholm (Formerly With Pointon Partners)
Author LinkedIn connections

The recent decision by the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) in ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd1 is expected to empower small businesses to negotiate terms of standard form contracts. It also serves as a timely reminder for large businesses to review their standard form contracts and practices.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) succeeded in its contention that eight terms in service agreements used by JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd (JJ Richards) were unfair and therefore void.

What is the relevant law?

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) provides that an unfair contractual term of a standard form contract will be void. The contract may continue to bind the parties, to the extent that the contract can continue without the void term.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

Unfair Contract Terms Penalties And The Updated UCT Regime: What Your Business Needs To Know

Australian businesses face dramatically increased penalties for competition and consumer law breaches, with corporate fines now reaching $50 million and individual penalties rising to $2.5 million. The unfair contract terms regime has been strengthened with new pecuniary penalties applying for the first time, creating urgent compliance obligations for businesses using standard form contracts. Companies that have not yet audited their contracts against these expanded obligations are now operating at signific
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Coleman Greig Lawyers
Coleman Greig Lawyers
Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners