Curtin University Homepage
  • Library
  • Help
    • Admin

    espace - Curtin’s institutional repository

    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    View Item 
    • espace Home
    • espace
    • Curtin Research Publications
    • View Item
    • espace Home
    • espace
    • Curtin Research Publications
    • View Item

    Section 22 unconscionability - a sauropod in need of life support

    240738_240738.pdf (229.2Kb)
    Access Status
    Open access
    Authors
    Griggs, L.
    Webb, Eileen
    Date
    2011
    Type
    Journal Article
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citation
    Griggs, L. and Webb, E. 2011. Section 22 unconscionability - a sauropod in need of life support. QUT Law and Justice Journal. 11 (1): pp. 31-47.
    Source Title
    QUT Law and Justice Journal
    DOI
    10.5204/qutlr.v11i1.4
    ISSN
    1445-6249
    Remarks

    This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/27972
    Collection
    • Curtin Research Publications
    Abstract

    The Full Federal Court decision in Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd (2009) 178 FCR 57; ATPR 42-294 represents a step back towards an era where unconscionable conduct was not allowed to impinge on commercial certainty. Of the four judges who heard this matter three different approaches to the relationship of what is now s 22 of the Australian Consumer Law to s 243 were given. The paper concludes that the primary judge Rares J was the only one of the quartet who got it right. The other three approaches impose, using the criterion of causation, restrictive barriers on the operation of s 22 unconscionability. Regrettably, with the High Court refusing special leave to appeal and in the absence of any suitable test case to explore the parameters, s 22 remains underutilised and under threat of being cast in the same light as the sauropod - an assumption that it looms large in weight and height but in the absence of anyone sighting it, presumed extinct. For this reason, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is urged to identify an appropriate test case to explore the limits of s 22. If this is not done urgently, the present narrow, confining operation of the legislation will not only be out of step with Parliament's intent, but positively moving in another direction.

    Advanced search

    Browse

    Communities & CollectionsIssue DateAuthorTitleSubjectDocument TypeThis CollectionIssue DateAuthorTitleSubjectDocument Type

    My Account

    Admin

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Follow Curtin

    • 
    • 
    • 
    • 
    • 

    CRICOS Provider Code: 00301JABN: 99 143 842 569TEQSA: PRV12158

    Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy statement | Accessibility

    Curtin would like to pay respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of our community by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which the Perth campus is located, the Whadjuk people of the Nyungar Nation; and on our Kalgoorlie campus, the Wongutha people of the North-Eastern Goldfields.