© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2016] FCA 1049
Federal Court of Australia
2016-08-29
Robertson J
Original judgment source is linked above.
(a) Conduct relating to the Sleep Sack
(b) Conduct relating to the Absorba Bodysuit 2. Pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act that, by offering to supply and supplying, on various dates between 7 July 2015 and 30 October 2015 consumer goods in trade or commerce via its website www.ozsale.com.au, being an absorba bodysuit (the Absorba Bodysuit), in circumstances in which the Absorba Bodysuit was: (a) subject to application of the Standard; (b) a Category 3 garment for the purposes of the Standard; (c) supplied without any accompanying fire hazard label; Ozsale failed to comply with clauses 3.4, 5.2(c), 5.3 and 5.5(a) of the Standard and thereby contravened ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL.
(c) Conduct relating to the Babycottons Pajamas 3. Pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act that, by offering to supply and supplying, between 19 and 23 July 2014 consumer goods in trade or commerce via its website www.ozsale.com.au, being a cupcake snug fit short sleep set (the Babycottons Pajamas), in circumstances in which the Babycottons Pajamas: (a) were subject to application of the Standard; (b) were a Category 2 garment for the purposes of the Standard; (c) carried a fixed fire hazard label on the top that stated, in characters less than 25 mm high: "WEAR SNUG FITTING. NOT FLAME RESISTANT" and was partially obscured by a label that stated "24M" and a further detachable fire label that stated: "For child's safety, garment should fit snugly. This garment is not flame resistant. Loose-fitting garment is more likely to catch fire"; (d) carried a fixed fire hazard label on the pants, located at the waist seam of the garment, partially obscured by a label, that stated "24M" and in characters less than 25 mm high "WEAR SNUG FITTING. NOT FLAME RESISTANT", Ozsale failed to comply with clauses 2.9, 5.2(c), 5.3(b), 5.3(e) and 5.5(a) and (c) of the Standard and thereby contravened ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL.
(d) Conduct relating to the Orange Superhero Pajamas 4. Pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act that, by offering to supply and supplying, on various dates between 8 February 2014 and 3 November 2014 the Orange Superhero Pajamas in circumstances in which the Orange Superhero Pajamas: (a) did not meet Clauses 2.5 or 2.6 (as required for Category 2) and were designated Category 4 under the Standard; (b) did not comply with clause 4.3 of the Standard; and (c) did not comply with the Standard as they did not meet the requirements of any of the categories in the Standard; Ozsale thereby contravened ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL.
(e) Conduct relating to the Joules Junior Pajamas 5. Pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act that, by offering to supply and supplying, on various dates between 3 March 2015 and 28 May 2015, consumer goods in trade or commerce via its website www.buvinvite.com.au, being joules junior pajamas (the Joules Junior Pajamas), in circumstances in which the Joules Junior Pajamas: (a) were subject to application of the Standard; (b) were a Category 2 garment for the purposes of the Standard; (c) carried a fixed fire hazard label on the top located at the neck seam, located near the sleeve seam that stated in red text on a white label: "WARNING KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" and a further detachable fire hazard label that was attached to the price tag and intended to be removed with that tag, hanging from the neck of the garment, that stated "IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, IT IS ADVISABLE TO KEEP THIS GARMENT AWAY FROM FIRE AND FLAMES"; (d) carried a fixed fire hazard label on the on the pants located at the waist seam of the garment near the outer leg seam that stated in red text on a white label: "WARNING KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" and a further fixed fire hazard label, located at the leg seam of the garment that stated in red text on a white label: "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE"; Ozsale trading as Buylnvite failed to comply with clauses 2.4, 2.9, 5.2(c), 5.3(a), 5.3(e) and 5.5(a) and (e) of the Standard and thereby contravened ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL.
THE COURT ORDERS: 6. Until 28 August 2019, the Respondent, whether by itself, its officers, servants, agents or howsoever otherwise, in trade or commerce in Australia be restrained from supplying or offering to supply a children's nightwear garment which is subject to a safety standard for the purposes of Division 1 of Part 3-3 of the ACL in force at the time of supply or offering to supply, unless that garment complies with the safety standard. 7. Pursuant to s 246(2)(b) of the ACL the Respondent: (a) establish a compliance program in accordance with the program set out in Annexure A for the employees or other persons involved in its business, being a program: (i) designed to ensure its awareness of the responsibilities and obligations in relation to the conduct declared by the Court in this proceeding to be in contravention of the ACL and any similar or related conduct; and (ii) revising the internal operations of its business which led to it engaging in the conduct declared by the Court in this proceeding to be a contravention of the ACL; (b) maintain and administer, at its own expense, the compliance program set out in Annexure A for a period of three years; and (c) provide, at its own expense, a copy of any documents to be provided to the Applicant pursuant to the compliance program set out in Annexure A. 8. Pursuant to s 224(1) of the ACL, the Respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty of the amount of $500,000 in respect of the contraventions of ss 106(1) and (2) of the ACL the subject of the Declarations in paragraphs 1-5 above. 9. Pursuant to s 43(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to this proceeding in the amount of $50,000. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. ANNEXURE A AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW COMPLIANCE PROGRAM - OZSALE Ozsale Pty Limited (Ozsale) will establish an Australian Consumer Law Compliance Program (the Compliance Program) that complies with the following requirements. Maintaining copies of relevant Mandatory Australian Standards
Introduction 1 These proceedings were commenced by application filed on 4 December 2015 by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). That application was amended on 2 March 2016 to limit its scope to exclude certain implied representations pleaded in relation to one of the lines of goods, the Sleep Sack. 2 The ACCC alleges, and Ozsale Pty Ltd (Ozsale) now admits, that Ozsale has engaged in conduct in contravention of ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by offering to supply and supplying five different items of children's nightwear via its websites during flash sales on various dates, which products failed to comply with AS/NZS 1249:2003 Children's nightwear and limited daywear having reduced fire hazard, published by Standards Australia on 29 December 2003, as applied by the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Safety Standards) Children's Nightwear and Paper Patterns for Children's Nightwear) Regulations 2007 (Cth) (the Standard). 3 The parties filed joint submissions on 15 August 2016. The parties have reached agreement on proposed pecuniary and non-pecuniary orders that they submit ought to be granted, while recognising that the question of relief remains in the discretion of the Court. 4 In relation to the contraventions of ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL, the parties submitted that there were five courses of conduct, comprising one course for each different garment supplied. The parties submitted that a total pecuniary penalty of $500,000, constituted as follows, was appropriate and within the range of penalties a court would order in the circumstances: (a) Orange Superhero Pajamas contravention: $160,000; (b) Sleep Sack contravention: $160,000; (c) Absorba Bodysuit contravention: $110,000; (d) Joules Junior Pajamas contravention: $40,000; and (e) Babycottons Pajamas contravention: $30,000. 5 The proposed short minutes of order agreed between the ACCC and Ozsale also provide for declarations, an injunction against Ozsale for a period of three years and non-punitive orders and a contribution to the ACCC's costs agreed in the sum of $50,000.
The statement of agreed facts and admissions 6 The joint statement of agreed facts and admissions is made pursuant to s 191(3)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). 7 Ozsale operates members only shopping clubs via its websites, through which it offers for supply and supplies a wide range of apparel and other consumer goods, including children's nightwear, throughout Australia. 8 Ozsale's business model is to source products, including all kinds of apparel and children's apparel, from suppliers in Europe or the United States, usually at the end of the relevant "sales season" in those markets, and to offer those products for sale via its websites to consumers in Australia for short sale periods as online flash sales. The sales were only offered to consumers who had signed up as members of Ozsale's websites by registering their name and email address with the websites. 9 Ozsale admits that it engaged in conduct in contravention of ss 106(1) and 106(2) of the ACL by offering to supply and supplying certain children's nightwear products via its websites, during flash sales on various dates as follows: (a) the Sleep Sack for a total of 21 days in the period 21 September 2014 to 9 January 2015; (f) the Absorba Bodysuit for a total of at most 33 days in the period 7 July 2015 to 30 October 2015; (g) the Babycottons Pajamas for a total of 5 days in the period 19 July to 23 July 2014; (h) the Orange Superhero Pajamas for a total of 24 days in the period 8 February 2014 to 3 November 2014; and (i) the Joules Junior Pajamas for a total of 13 days in the period 3 March 2015 to 28 May 2015; which products failed to comply with the Standard as applied by the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Safety Standards) Children's Nightwear and Paper Patterns for Children's Nightwear) Regulations 2007 (Cth). 10 The Sleep Sack had no fire hazard label and was a Category 4 garment that required a high fire danger label. The garment was the subject of sales for a total of 21 days during which 56 were supplied. 11 The Absorba Bodysuit had no fire hazard label and was a Category 3 garment that required a low fire danger label. The garment was the subject of sales for a total of up to 33 days during which 138 were supplied. 12 The Babycottons Pajamas garment was labelled "Wear Snug Fitting. Not Flame Resistant" and was a Category 2 garment that required a low fire danger label. The garment was the subject of sales for a total of five days. Two of the garments, the relevant supplies, were supplied to the ACCC. 13 The Orange Superhero Pajamas garment had no fire hazard warning and did not comply with the Standard. As such, it should not have been sold in Australia. The garment was the subject of sales for a total of 24 days during which 18 were supplied. 14 The Joules Junior Pajamas garment was labelled "Warning Keep Away from Fire" and also had a detachable warning label. It was a Category 2 garment that required a low fire danger label. The warning labels were also in the wrong position on the garment. The garment was the subject of sales on a total of 13 days during which six were supplied. 15 Neither the ACCC nor Ozsale received any complaints to the effect that any person suffered any injury arising from the purchase of the non-compliant children's nightwear garments from Ozsale. 16 Although there was no evidence of any loss or damage being suffered, 220 non-compliant garments were sold and there was a larger number of garments available for supply by Ozsale. This failure put children at risk. 17 The parties submitted, and I find, that Ozsale's contraventions of the ACL are serious, given the circumstances in which they took place. I note that the products were supplied and offered for supply for use by infants. Ozsale's contravening conduct was the result of it having inadequate product safety procedures. The procedures lacked sufficient safeguards and checks to identify non-compliant children's nightwear garments being offered for supply by Ozsale. In the case of four products, contraventions took place after the ACCC had put Ozsale on notice of the requirement to comply with the Standard as a result of the supply of the non-compliant Babycottons Pajamas. While Ozsale did take some steps to comply with the Standard, those efforts were inadequate since contraventions continued. The circumstances of the Absorba Bodysuit contraventions were particularly serious. Although there is no evidence to suggest any deliberate attempt on Ozsale's part to supply non-compliant children's nightwear, Ozsale sold the nightwear without evidence that it complied with the Standard. 18 I note that Ozsale co-operated with the ACCC before the commencement of and during this proceeding in respect of the contraventions the subject of the proceeding. Ozsale complied with its legal obligations under the ACL and undertook product recalls of all of the non-compliant products after being notified of the non-compliance by the ACCC. Ozsale followed-up with customers who had purchased the non-compliant garments to notify them of the recalls and offered incentives to the customers to return the products. 19 The parties agree, and I find, that in assessing the appropriate penalty, the Orange Superhero Pajamas and the Sleep Sack contraventions are more serious contraventions than the others, given that one garment should not have been sold and the other had no fire hazard warning when it should have had a high fire danger label. The Absorba Bodysuit is also more serious given the absence of a fire hazard label and the circumstance that contraventions took place after the ACCC had put Ozsale on notice. 20 The parties submit, and I find, that in considering the appropriate penalty, both specific and general deterrence should be given significant weight. Relevantly: (a) Ozsale's conduct had the potential to put a significant number of children, a vulnerable class of the community, at risk of serious injury; (b) the conduct was not an isolated incident but involved contraventions in respect of five children's nightwear garments over distinct periods over 96 sales days when the various items were offered for sale; (c) Ozsale's total revenue from the sale of the 220 non-compliant items was approximately $4000 and its gross margin on the sale of these garments was just over $2000; (d) Ozsale's contravening conduct was the result of it not having in place internal procedures that were adequate to ensure that children's nightwear products that it offered for sale complied with the Standard; and (e) a number of the contraventions took place after Ozsale was put on notice of the ACCC's concerns regarding Ozsale's compliance procedures to ensure compliance with the Standard. 21 It is also appropriate to have regard to the fact that Ozsale is a corporation of significant size and turnover. Ozsale is a large Australian proprietary company, trading under its own name and the business name BuyInvite. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of MySale Group Plc. Ozsale is a large, well-known online retailer and in financial year 2015 its sales revenue was $232.3 million, with a loss before income tax (expense)/benefit of $21.8 million, the corresponding figures for financial year 2014 being $222.4 million and $13.5 million. As at the end of March 2016, Ozsale employed 211 staff in Australia.
Consideration 22 Pursuant to s 224 of the ACL, where the Court is satisfied that a person has contravened s 106 it may order a pecuniary penalty in respect of each act or omission "as the court determines to be appropriate". The maximum civil pecuniary penalty under s 224 for a corporation for each contravention of s 106 is $1.1 million: see s 224(1)(a)(viii) and item 9 of the table in s 224(3). It is within the Court's discretion to impose a separate penalty for each contravention or to impose one penalty for all contraventions. 23 By s 224(2), the Court must have regard to "all relevant matters", including the nature and extent of the act or omission, and of any loss or damage suffered as a result of the act or omission; the circumstances in which the act or omission took place; and whether the person has previously been found by a court to have engaged in similar conduct. 24 I also take into account the factors summarised in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SingTel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) [2000] FCA 761; 282 ALR 246 at [11], (referred to with apparent approval on appeal: Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 20; 287 ALR 249 at [37]) where Perram J referred to: … relevant non-mandatory factors under s 76E will include: 1. the size of the contravening company; 2. the deliberateness of the contravention and the period over which it extended; 3. whether the contravention arose out of the conduct of senior management of the contravener or at some lower level; 4. whether the contravener has a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act (or the new Australian Competition and Consumer Law) as evidenced by educational programmes and disciplinary or other corrective measures in response to an acknowledged contravention; 5. whether the contravener has shown a disposition to co-operate with the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to the contravention; 6. whether the contravener has engaged in similar conduct in the past; 7. the financial position of the contravener; 8. whether the contravening conduct was systematic, deliberate or covert. I also take into account the following additional factors referred to in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Ltd [2016] FCA 44 at [126] per Edelman J: 9. the extent of contrition; 10. whether the contravening company made a profit from the contraventions; 11. the extent of the profit made by the contravening company; and 12. whether the contravening company engaged in the conduct with an intention to profit from it. 25 I accept, as the parties have put, that in cases of contraventions of safety standards involving products used by children, general deterrence demands a significant penalty. I accept that in relation to fire hazard labelling for children's nightwear, the fact that the risk of fire and burning is a very dangerous one is relevant to the issue of general deterrence. 26 I also accept, as the parties have put, that in determining the appropriate penalty the total penalty for related offences ought not to exceed what is proper for the entire contravening conduct involved. I refer in this respect to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 145 ALR 36 at 53 per Goldberg J. 27 I take into account, as jointly submitted by the parties, the nature and extent of the contravening conduct and the loss or damage suffered; the circumstances in which the contravening conduct took place; that no previous proceedings have been instituted against Ozsale in respect of similar conduct; that Ozsale is a large Australian proprietary company; the period over which the contravening conduct extended, being 96 sales days; the conduct of senior management which, although not involved in the specific episodes, had in place inadequate processes and systems; the lack of a culture of compliance at relevant times; and the co-operation by Ozsale with the ACCC. In that context I note the contrition on the part of Ozsale conveyed to the Court by the company's legal representative in her oral submissions.
Conclusion and orders 28 I find that the total pecuniary penalty of $500,000 is appropriate. I refer to the matters I have set out at [20] above. 29 As to the other remedies on which the parties have put joint submissions I propose to make the proposed declarations, which identify with precision the specific conduct which contravened the ACL and are directed to the determination of a legal controversy. I find that the declarations will serve the public interest in defining and publicising the type of conduct that constitutes a contravention. It will serve the purposes of deterrence, of informing consumers and of recording the Court's disapproval of the conduct engaged in: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cotton On Kids Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1428 at [29] per Tracey J. 30 In my opinion, it is also appropriate to make orders restraining Ozsale for a period of three years from supplying or offering to supply a children's nightwear garment which is subject to a safety standard, or offering to supply such a children's nightwear garment, unless that garment complies with the safety standard. I find the injunction to which the parties have agreed is appropriate to deter repetition of the contraventions by attaching the sanctions available for contempt of court to any repetition of the contraventions. 31 I also find, as submitted by the parties, that the imposition of a product safety compliance program in the form agreed at Annexure A to the parties' joint submissions is warranted given the ongoing instances of non-compliance by Ozsale the subject of the proceeding. I note that those orders include an independent testing of sample purchases to be undertaken by the independent reviewer as a means of checking that the compliance program is effective and working. 32 In relation to costs, I note the agreement of the parties that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the amount of $50,000, and I so order. 33 I make orders accordingly. I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Ozsale Pty Limited