NEWS

Jurisdictional surprises in the Competition and Consumer Act

The introduction of the Competition and Consumer Act contains a number of new provisions that did not exist in the Trade Practices Act – some of which modify the rules on which the Court has the power to exercise jurisdiction over Australian Consumer Law claims.

There was little doubt that most claims against corporations falling within the “consumer protection” and “product liability” (collectively, Consumer Protection Claims) provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) could be instituted in the Federal or State courts.

This meant that claims for damages or compensation arising from misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and/or defective products could be made in a wide variety of courts. It really was a matter for the lawyer and the client to consider which jurisdiction would be most appropriate (see sections 86 and 75AS of the TPA).

Whilst the aim of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) was to harmonise pre-existing legislation surrounding Consumer Protection Claims, in doing so, the CCA introduced a number of new provisions that did not have any predecessor in the TPA.

The effect of some of these new provisions (see sections 138 to 138B of the CCA) was to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court (subject to the value of the claim) to deal with the following Consumer Protection Claims (by expressly excluding the jurisdiction of State and Territory courts in respect of these claims) (Defect and Pyramid Claims):

  • any matter arising under Division 2, Part 3-1 of Schedule 2 of the CCA (pyramid schemes); or
  • Part 3-5 of Schedule 2 of the CCA (liability of manufacturers for goods with safety defects).

Commencing a Defect or Pyramid Claim in a State or Territory court may:

  • result in the claim being struck out for lack of jurisdiction (including, at worst, being struck out after a relevant limitation period has expired),
  • if unchecked, lead to a judgment that is ultra vires, and
  • be an embarrassing and costly mistake.

To that end, if a Defect or Pyramid Claim comes along – think Federal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623