← All Authorities
Australia unconscionabilityanti competitive agreements

ACCC v CG Nominees (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2)

(2001) 112 FCR 515
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtFederal Court of Australia
Year2001
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Systemic unconscionable conduct in commerce may found liability under s.51AC TPA (now ACL s.21) without targeting a specific individual.

Key Principle

unconscionable conduct in commerce; s.51AC TPA (now ACL s.21); systemic unconscionability

Area of Law

equity

Related Cases

Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560

Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment for mistaken payments where the defendant has detrimentally relied on the receipt.

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498

Unjust enrichment claims for money paid under illegal contracts may succeed if recovery is consistent with the statutory policy underlying the illegality.

Friend v Brooker (2009) 239 CLR 129

Equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty does not require but-for causation, and a fiduciary must account for profits made in breach of their stringent obligations.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of ACCC v CG Nominees (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain ACCC v CG Nominees (Australia)...