Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 NOVEMBER 2012

Updating terms and conditions to comply with recent changes

Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox
Contributor
Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox is a leading independent Australian law firm. We are a national firm with eight...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hall & Wilcox

Non-compliant terms and conditions run the risk of being unenforceable and exposing a business to substantial fines.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Ben Hamilton
Ben Hamilton
James Deady
James Deady

Recent changes to various laws have had a significant effect on how terms and conditions should be drafted. Non-compliant terms and conditions run the risk of being unenforceable and exposing a business to substantial fines.

As an example, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been active in enforcing the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Since January 2010, over $18 million in fines have been imposed for breaches of the ACL. Of these, at least six companies were fined over $1 million.

Another change, the introduction of the Personal Property Security Act 2009 (PPSA), means that if goods are sold on credit or terms contain retention of title provisions, these provisions may be ineffective.

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

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

When Is A Loss Not A Loss? Federal Court Examines Insurance Policy Exclusions

The Federal Court of Australia has determined that ANZ was not entitled to insurance coverage for nearly $117 million in class action settlements and defense costs, examining whether these settlements qualified as insured Loss under excess insurance policies. This landmark decision provides critical guidance on policy interpretation, particularly regarding when repayments of premiums, commissions and charges may fall outside insurance coverage, and how exclusions for excessive or improper charges should be
AustraliaInsurance
Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox