The Federal Court held that Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus cladding products were not of unacceptable or unmerchantable quality under ACL s 54 or TPA s 74D, because the products were not inherently defective and their safety and BCA compliance could only be determined through individual building-specific assessment by qualified professionals — the existence of a regulatory framework requiring professional intermediary assessment was central to the quality assessment. The misleading conduct claim under ACL ss 29 and 33 also failed, as the marketing material was directed at qualified professionals who would not have understood the representations as unconditional assurances of safety and compliance for all building applications; additionally, the Shore OC's misleading conduct claim was held to be time-barred. On limitation issues, the Court held that amendments to the class definition in a representative proceeding take effect from the date of amendment (not commencement), and that knowledge triggering the limitation period under ACL s 273 requires awareness that the consumer guarantee has not been complied with, not knowledge of the specific product defect or legal responsibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.