Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited

Federal Court of Australia|2014-09-29|Before: Mr P, Allsop CJ

A declaration that the respondent (Coles), from 1 July 2012, by supplying in Coles supermarkets which have an in-store bakery (Coles Bakery Stores) bakery products in packaging displaying the words "Baked Today, Sold Today", represented to customers in its supermarkets in Australia that the products contained in the packaging were entirely baked on the day on which they were offered for sale, in circumstances where only some baking of certain products contained in that packaging had taken place on the day on which they were offered for sale, and in relation to these products Coles thereby: (a) engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) (ACL); (b) made a representation in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply or promotion of the supply of goods that was false or misleading as to the history of the goods in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the ACL; and (c) engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, and the characteristics of goods in contravention of section 33 of the ACL.
A declaration that Coles, from 1 July 2012, by supplying in Coles Bakery Stores bakery products in packaging displaying the words "Freshly Baked In-Store" and by displaying signage in Coles Bakery Stores which displayed the words "Freshly Baked" and "Baked Fresh" represented to customers in its supermarkets in Australia that the products contained in the packaging and the products offered for sale proximate to the signage were baked from fresh dough, and that they had been entirely baked on the day on which they were offered for sale and that they had been entirely baked in the Coles Bakery Store in which they were sold on the day on which they were offered for sale, in circumstances where only some baking of certain products contained in that packaging and the products proximate to the signage had taken place in the Coles Bakery Store in which they were sold on the day on which they were offered for sale and that baking was of frozen par-baked product, not fresh dough, and Coles thereby: (a) engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the ACL; (b) made a representation in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply or promotion of the supply of goods that was false or misleading as to the history of the goods in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the ACL; and (c) engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, and the characteristics of goods in contravention of section 33 of the ACL. THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 475 of 2013

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

JUDGE: ALLSOP CJ DATE: 29 september 2014 PLACE: sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 18 June 2004 I published reasons in this matter and directed the parties to provide submissions as to orders if they could not agree upon them. The parties were not able to agree upon orders and filed competing draft orders together with submissions. 2 The draft orders supplied by both sides had a degree of complexity which I do not think is warranted by the matter. As my essential orders sought to make clear in particular from [140] onwards the issues litigated were tolerably straight-forward in terms of expression. I do not think over-complexity is required. Nor do I think a declaration in the form of reduction to the particularity of evidence is either required or appropriate in this case. 3 The orders reflect the case made by the ACCC which was directed to par-baked products. I appreciate that my reasoning in relation to "freshly baked" and "baked fresh" may conceivably go beyond that, but the ACCC should be entitled to relief only upon its pleaded case. 4 In the circumstances of this case, I do not think there is any necessity for compliance orders of the kind propounded by the ACCC. The publicity already received by Coles and the publicity likely to be received by the Corrective Notice to be displayed in stores and on the website will amply act as a discipline for the need for compliance. 5 One matter should be stated about the injunction I have made. The injunction is straight-forward and simple. The ACCC wished to include the usage of particular words which had been used in the proceedings. Coles in answer to this wanted a disclaimer or qualification to the effect that the words could be used if it made clear that the baking process was only partly undertaken on the day. The inclusion of both would be apt to produce difficulty. As I made plain in my judgment, the context of any particular representation will have to be taken into account to assess its accuracy. I do not repeat why I thought these representations were misleading or deceptive. Coles should be restrained from making the misleading or deceptive representations that they have made by the substantively simple expression that I have said. It is a matter for Coles to so conduct its business to ensure that the representations it makes do not contravene the order. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)