Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd

(2016) 340 ALR 25; [2016] FCAFC 181

Full Court of the Federal Court16 December 2016

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Consumer Law
1. pecuniary penalty for infringement of Australian Consumer Law
1. appropriate approach to assessment and appellate review of civil penalty
1. relevance of mental state to pleadings and assessment of penalty

Quick Take

State of mind need not be pleaded for it to be relevant to penalty assessment in civil penalty proceedings; the contravener bears the onus of proving any mitigatory state of mind; and courts should not accept the conceptual framework of contravening conduct when assessing consumer loss.

Case Details

Citation[2016] FCAFC 181

Reported(2016) 340 ALR 25

CourtFCAFC

JurisdictionCommonwealth

Decision Date16 December 2016

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 355 later cases that cite this judgment.

40 of the 355 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by355

2026Environment Protection Authority Victoria v RenexVSC 563
2026Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission v Peters (Penalty and Other Relief)FCA 1241
2026Fewstone Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionFCAFC 104
2026In the matter of Fiducian Investment Management Services Pty LtdNSWSC 959
and 351 more after sign-in

Relies on

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in