Australia: What’s Unconscionable and am I liable? High Court provides guidance on the principles of unconscionable conduct and accessorial liability
Written By
Senior Associate
Australia
I am a senior associate in the Dispute Resolution team in Sydney. I provide succinct, solutions orientated advice to help our clients solve complex problems, mitigate future risks and develop strategies to simplify their decision-making process.
Partner
Australia
I am an experienced litigation and investigations lawyer based in Sydney, leading Bird & Bird's Australian disputes and investigations practice and co-leading our global Defence and Security practice.
Partner
Australia
I am a partner in our Sydney office, where I specialise in media and technology disputes and advice.
Related
Practices
Sectors
- Automotive
- Aviation & Aerospace
- Defence & Security
- Energy & Utilities
- Financial Services
- Life Sciences and Healthcare
- Media, Entertainment and Sport
- Retail and Consumer
- Technology & Communications
Regions
Countries
Offices
The High Court recently found in favour of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in a judgment providing guidance on the principles of unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and the general law principles of accessorial liability, including in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct claims.
Background
The High Court’s decision concerned two interrelated appeals from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, concerning the ACCC’s enforcement proceedings over education provider Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (Productivity Partners).
The Full Court’s decision upheld the Federal Court’s findings that Productivity Partners engaged in systemic unconscionable conduct by removing consumer safeguards from its enrolment process which exploited the Commonwealth’s VET FEE-HELP scheme for commercial gain through the onboarding of unknowing and unsuitable students. The Full Court also found that Site Group Limited…
