Feedback

 

(b) That's probably wrong. In the present case the conduct consists of the director's statements. Conduct is misleading when it leads the persons at whom it is directed into error. There are therefore two questions to ask. Firstly, at what group of persons was the conduct directed? Secondly, were persons in that group likely to be misled because of the conduct?

The director's conduct was aimed at B as a prospective tenant. Keeping in mind the whole range of persons in the group of prospective tenants, were the director's statements likely to mislead? Since the statements are untrue, but are plausible and likely to be believed by prospective tenants, the answer must surely be yes. The director's statements are therefore misleading or likely to mislead.

Misleading conduct can take many forms. It can involve doing something, or failing to do something. It can also involve making, or failing to make, a statement. Because the concept is so wide, it applies to a great many different situations, as long as they take place 'in trade or commerce'. The prohibition of misleading conduct has had a profound effect on the way business is conducted in Australia.

 McWilliam's Wines Pty Limited v McDonald's System of Australia Pty Limited (1980) 33 ALR 394.

Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited (2014) 317 ALR 73

Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 138 

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Employsure Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 157