logo

Reasoning and Decision of all Three Courts | Assignment

7 Pages1483 Words244 Views
   

Added on  2020-04-01

Reasoning and Decision of all Three Courts | Assignment

   Added on 2020-04-01

ShareRelated Documents
Running Head: Law 1Law
Reasoning and Decision of all Three Courts | Assignment_1
Law2Introduction:On 12th December 2013, High court provides the decision in case ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd.In this case, company was represented by the Truman Hoyle from the commencement of thecase. Firstly application was filed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission(ACCC) in the Federal Court for getting injunction on urgent basis, and this application wassuccessfully defended in 2010 through the hearing before the Murphy J. Later, TPG filesuccessful appeal to the Full Federal Court, and decision of the Full Federal Court wasoverturned by High Court in the appeal of ACCC. This paper states, decision made by all three Courts and their reasoning. Subsequently paper isconcluded with brief conclusion. Facts of the case: During the period of 2010 and 2011, a multi-media advertisement campaign was conducted bythe TPG, and advertisement published by the company reflects that company provide unlimitedADSL2+ service only for $29.99 per month. In actual, consumers need to bundle these internetservices with the telephone connection of their home for $30 per month. Company also chargedadditional $149.95 as set-up fee and telephone charges. It must be noted that all these additionalcost were not disclosed by the company in their advertisement, and these cost were considered ashidden additional cost. ACCC file claim against the TPG that advertisement published by TPG was deceptive andmisleading nature, as it contravenes section 52 and 53 of the Trade Practice Act and also section18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer law. In this case, claim of ACCC was upheld by theprimary judge and primary judge imposed pecuniary penalty of $2 million. Appeal was filed bythe TPG against this decision of primary Judge to the to the Full Court, and Full court set aside
Reasoning and Decision of all Three Courts | Assignment_2
Law3the decision of the Primary judge and reduce the penalty order up to $50000. ACCC file appealto the High Court against the decision of the Full Court, and High Court set aside the decision ofFull Court (battersby, 2013). Reasoning and decision of all three Courts:Primary Judge:Primary Judge upheld the application made by ACCC against the TPG, and also imposedpecuniary penalty on TPG of $2 million. Three perspectives were considered by the primaryjudge while deciding this case, and all these three perspectives are stated below:Bundling- Primary judge stated that it was the primary obligation of the company toclarify the effect of bundling in their advertisement. Judge further stated, company wasalso obliged to mention the exact amount of the services charged by the company withoutmisleading the consumer. In this company charged hidden cost from their clients afterconsumer opt for services. Consumers were misled by the TPG, because companymention wrong amount in the advertisement for the internet services. Primary judgeclarify the targeted audience in this case, and held that were those people who does notpossess high level of knowledge related to the broadband services or those also who usethe internet services for the first time (Federal Court of Australia, 2012). Setup Fee- in this context primary judge held, generally setup fee was charged fromthose consumers who opts the services of the company for less two periods, and companymust provide information related to this cost to the consumer before providing theservices. In this case, setup fee was not stated by the company in the advertisement, andbecause of this consumers assumed that company does not charge any setup fee.
Reasoning and Decision of all Three Courts | Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
ACCC v TPG Case Analysis: Misleading Ads and Legal Rulings
|7
|1556
|353

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission vs TPG Internet Pty Ltd- Law Assignment
|6
|1499
|328

ACCC v TPG Case Study Analysis - Assignment
|3
|485
|269

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission | Assignment
|10
|2061
|47

ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd: A Case Study
|7
|1805
|173

BUS101 | Introduction to Business Law - Assignment
|4
|439
|215