Corporate and Commercial

A Tale Of Two Beers: Passing Off And Misleading And Deceptive Conduct

This month the Full Federal Court considered the case of a producer who claimed that their competitor had been passing off a product that was similar to their own.

The Court found that merely taking advantage of a market created by another producer was not enough for passing off. Misrepresentation and damage to goodwill are also required.

Insolvency Disclaimer As Priority Over Conflicting State Law

Insolvency practitioners and company directors will be relieved to learn that in general circumstances disclaimers of onerous obligations by a liquidator will have priority over conflicting state laws.

The recent case of Longley & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and Anor [2018] QCA 32 (Longley) overturned a contentious decision of the Brisbane Supreme Court and reiterated the general priority of the Corporations Act (Cth) over State laws.

Where The Better Equity Lies: A Lesson In Registering Interests

This month, the Victorian Supreme Court took into consideration the conduct of lenders to determine which competing interest should have priority when there are only limited funds available to split between parties.

The Court found that lenders must act with diligence to register their security interests to ensure that they are protected against claims of third parties or risk losing out financially.

Misleading And Deceptive Advertising: Avoiding The Headache

The Federal Court decision against the manufacturer of Nurofen serves as a reminder of advertiser’s obligations when making claims about their products. The decision handed down in January 2018 provides guidance about what a proper scientific basis is to support a representation made in an advertisement. A proper basis is vital in order to avoid potential liability arising out of the operation of the misleading and deceptive conduct provision under the Australian Consumer Law for those who get it wrong.