The (almost) redundant civil accessorial liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) imposes civil accessorial liability on parties "involved in the contravention" of parts of the Act, defined in s 75B . Litigation and commentary on this section shows that it is difficult to prove accessorial liability and many claims have failed. This is because, problematically, the scheme of accessorial liability adopted means that an accessory must be shown to have actual knowledge of the misleading or deceptive nature of the principal's conduct. Yet, in most circumstances in which, historically, the accessory provisions have been relied upon, it is not necessary to establish accessorial liability at all. Instead, it is easier to pursue claims against natural persons for direct contravention of State Fair Trading Act provisions. This conclusion is supported by the recent High Court decision in Houghton v Arms .
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)37-47
Number of pages11
JournalTrade Practices Law Journal
Volume16
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Fingerprint

liability
act
court decision
human being

Cite this

@article{53b9548f53954366843f1fb3e9da77d3,
title = "The (almost) redundant civil accessorial liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act",
abstract = "The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) imposes civil accessorial liability on parties {"}involved in the contravention{"} of parts of the Act, defined in s 75B . Litigation and commentary on this section shows that it is difficult to prove accessorial liability and many claims have failed. This is because, problematically, the scheme of accessorial liability adopted means that an accessory must be shown to have actual knowledge of the misleading or deceptive nature of the principal's conduct. Yet, in most circumstances in which, historically, the accessory provisions have been relied upon, it is not necessary to establish accessorial liability at all. Instead, it is easier to pursue claims against natural persons for direct contravention of State Fair Trading Act provisions. This conclusion is supported by the recent High Court decision in Houghton v Arms .",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2008",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "37--47",
journal = "Trade Practices Law Journal",
issn = "1039-3277",
publisher = "Thomson Reuters (Prous Science)",
number = "1",

}

The (almost) redundant civil accessorial liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act. / Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Trade Practices Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2008, p. 37-47.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The (almost) redundant civil accessorial liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) imposes civil accessorial liability on parties "involved in the contravention" of parts of the Act, defined in s 75B . Litigation and commentary on this section shows that it is difficult to prove accessorial liability and many claims have failed. This is because, problematically, the scheme of accessorial liability adopted means that an accessory must be shown to have actual knowledge of the misleading or deceptive nature of the principal's conduct. Yet, in most circumstances in which, historically, the accessory provisions have been relied upon, it is not necessary to establish accessorial liability at all. Instead, it is easier to pursue claims against natural persons for direct contravention of State Fair Trading Act provisions. This conclusion is supported by the recent High Court decision in Houghton v Arms .

AB - The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) imposes civil accessorial liability on parties "involved in the contravention" of parts of the Act, defined in s 75B . Litigation and commentary on this section shows that it is difficult to prove accessorial liability and many claims have failed. This is because, problematically, the scheme of accessorial liability adopted means that an accessory must be shown to have actual knowledge of the misleading or deceptive nature of the principal's conduct. Yet, in most circumstances in which, historically, the accessory provisions have been relied upon, it is not necessary to establish accessorial liability at all. Instead, it is easier to pursue claims against natural persons for direct contravention of State Fair Trading Act provisions. This conclusion is supported by the recent High Court decision in Houghton v Arms .

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 37

EP - 47

JO - Trade Practices Law Journal

JF - Trade Practices Law Journal

SN - 1039-3277

IS - 1

ER -