*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to New Westlaw.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (Volume 32 Part 2) contains the following material:
EDITORIAL
Articles
The Use of Public Warning Notices By ASIC – Should the Law Be Reformed? – Lloyd Freeburn and Ian Ramsay
Public warning notices are issued by regulators with the objective of preventing harm to the public. They do this by identifying conduct that is causing harm or may cause harm. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has published only 12 public warning notices since it was given the power to publish these notices in 2010. The authors explore the use of public warning notices by ASIC and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and consider why public warning notices have been little used by these regulators. Other issues discussed by the authors include the benefits and concerns associated with these notices, factors that may be considered in the making of notices and the form of notices, and whether ASIC’s public warning notices power should be broadened, as recommended in a 2022 report of the Senate Economics References Committee.
A Matter of Opinion: Statements of Opinion, Implied Representations and Liability for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct – Seung Chan Rhee
The misleading or deceptive conduct provisions enable the actioning of representations of fact, which often take the form of statements of opinion. Although by nature an opinion is not factual, it can convey implied representations of fact. The general position is that an opinion represents only two things: (1) that it is honestly held, and, (2), perhaps, that there is a reasonable basis for it. This means representors cannot be liable merely for the incorrectness of their opinions. However, it is unclear what “perhaps” entails – when will an opinion imply that it is founded on some basis, such that its absence renders it misleading and deceptive? The courts have laboured under this uncertainty since the introduction of the trade practices legislation. The author argues that the courts have, in response, fashioned a largely implicit approach based on reliance, and concludes by suggesting that this reasoning should be expressly articulated rather than retaining the loose and unhelpful language of “perhaps”.
ACCESS TO SERVICES – Editor: John Hedge
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT AND CODES OF CONDUCT – Editor: Deniz Kayis
- Unconscionable Conduct: Linguistic, Cultural and Racial Factors – Matthew Bunten
CASE NOTES – Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC
- Bed, Bath and a Cautionary Fable – When Trade Mark, Consumer and Tort Law Collide – Simon Muys, Kelvin Ng and Jason Ghaly
- Navigating High Seas: A Case Note on Karpik v Carnival plc (2023) 98 ALJR 45; [2023] HCA 39 – Andrew Attard and Lynsey Edgar
TRIBUNAL TABLEAUX
COMMENTS FROM COMMERCE
- Most Assuredly, There Is a Problem … – Elizabeth (Liz) Greenwood
REPORT FROM BRITAIN – Editor: Lisa Navarro
- Rising Tides: Regulating Digital Markets, Consumer Protection and National Security via the Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Bill – Lisa Navarro and Annalie Grogan
REPORT FROM NEW ZEALAND – Editor: Debra Wilson
- Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws in Fair Trading Cases – Debra Wilson
REPORT FROM NORTH AMERICA – Editor: Christopher Pleatsikas
- Never Underestimate the Role of a Maverick to Competition: USA et al v American Airlines Group Inc et al – Yajing Jiang
BOOK REVIEW
- The Philippine Competition Act Annotated, Amabelle C Asuncion, Rachel M Burgess and Alain Charles J Veloso – Reviewed by Russell Miller AM
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – AJCCL Vol 32 No 2 Contents.
Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU
For general queries, please contact: tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com.