Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 MARCH 2017

Unconscionable conduct - A comparison of Coles and Woolworths decisions

Colin Biggers & Paisley
Explore more from Colin Biggers & Paisley

The cases provide lessons for businesses to avoid requests of suppliers or distributers that could be seen as threats.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Jon Meadmore
Jon Meadmore

IN BRIEF - FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS PROVIDE LESSONS FOR BUSINESSES

While the Federal Court cases of ACCC v Coles [2014] FCA 1405 and, more recently, ACCC v Woolworths [2016] FCA 1472 delivered different outcomes, they nevertheless provide important lessons for larger entities to be aware of what is considered normal business practice in their industries and to avoid requests of suppliers or distributers that could reasonably be perceived as threats.

UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT IS A BROAD AREA OF LAW AND COURTS MAY CONSIDER A RANGE OF FACTORS

These two cases concerned Australia's supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths seeking retrospective payments from suppliers, which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleged amounted to unconscionable conduct under section 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

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