Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 APRIL 2009

Reasonable Readers, Disclaimers, And Permanent Injunctions

This decision is interesting not because of Judge McCallum’s finding that the defendant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

AustraliaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Commerce v Hunter [2008] NSWSC 277

  • Who is the "ordinary" or "reasonable" consumer?
  • Ordinary readers of the Northern Beaches Weekender do not have an appreciation of what study would be needed to obtain a PhD.
  • A post-advertisement disclaimer was ineffective to correct any misleading impression.
  • A permanent injunction to restraining misleading and deceptive conduct held appropriate.

This decision is interesting not because of Judge McCallum's finding that the defendant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. Rather, it illustrates the importance for litigants of never assuming that something does not need to be proved. It also shows that a defendant's past conduct is relevant to orders made under the Trade Practices Act.

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.

See more popular content from