The Federal Court decision in Girchow Enterprises v Ultimate Franchising Group [2023] FCA 420 is a reminder that if you make financial claims about future profits or startup costs without a solid basis, you could be liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Withholding information whilst negotiating agreements can amount to misleading and deceptive conduct. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Sec New Line Pty Ltd v Muffin Break Pty Ltd provides important guidance on when silence will become deceptive, specifically in the context of lease and franchising renewals.

The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.

The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.

On Thursday 16 November 2023, the Federal Court handed down the decision McD Asia Pacific LLC v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412 (McD) where it was held the trade mark ‘BIG JACK’ and ‘MEGA JACK’ were not deceptively similar to McDonald’s registered trade marks ‘BIG MAC’ and ‘MEGA MAC’.