Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cargolux Airlines... [2009] FCA 342 | Case summary | Zoe

Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Ask Zoe →

Home/Cases/[2009] FCA 342

CTHFCA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cargolux Airlines International SA

[2009] FCA 342

Federal Court of Australia|2009-04-14|Before: Lindgren J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Federal Court of Australia

Decision date

2009-04-14

Before

Lindgren J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Plain-English guides

Faulty goods: major vs minor problems and refundsAustralia
Unfair contract terms under Australian Consumer LawAustralia
Cancel a door-to-door or cold-call sale (ACL cooling-off)Australia

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

[1]

Lufthansa announced additional trigger points for levels 5 and 6 on 14 May 2004.

[2]

Lufthansa announced additional trigger points for levels 7 and 8 on 20 September 2004.

[3]

Lufthansa announced additional trigger points for levels 9 and 10 on 21 March 2005.

[4]

Lufthansa announced additional trigger points for levels 11 and 12 on 22 August 2005.

[5]

Lufthansa announced additional trigger points for levels 13 and 14 on 4 October 2005.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Respondent/Defendant:

Cargolux Airlines International SA

Legislation Cited (2)

Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth)

Evidence Act 1995(Cth)

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (4)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Martinair Holland NV

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Société Air France

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation