The Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision in Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2025] FCAFC 144 provides insight into the interaction between franchisor liability and ‘reverse onus’ mechanisms in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Specifically, the Federal Court confirmed that franchisors can be held legally responsible for workplace contraventions by franchisees, even where the case against the franchisee relies on a ‘reverse onus of proof’. Franchisors are recommended to implement proactive compliance systems across their networks to avoid liability.

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.

The ACCC has issued penalties to Cash Converters and Mobile Travel Agents for breaching the Franchising Code of Conduct by failing to update required information on the Franchise Disclosure Register.

Post the ASIC civil penalty proceedings against RAMS Financial Group over alleged systemic misconduct in its home loan operations a class action by former franchisees is now seeking to intervene in the ASIC matter, citing overlapping factual issues and concerns over reliance on Westpac’s internal findings.  #franchising #disclosure #franchisor_liability

Collective bargaining presents on its face an attractive option for franchisees. By joining forces and splitting negotiating costs, franchisees may be able to use collective power to strengthen their bargaining position and negotiate more favourable outcomes with their franchisor.