The Federal Court has explained why it dismissed Harvey Norman’s appeal to a ruling made last year about the retailer’s misleading financial claims in a national advertising campaign.
In their written judgment, Justices O’Bryan, Cheeseman and Bennett said it was “regrettable” that the final determination in this proceeding had been delayed by the “unmeritorious” applications for leave to appeal.
“The decision of the primary judge is not attended by any real doubt and that the draft grounds of appeal lack merit and are barely arguable,” they stressed.
Last October, the court ruled against Harvey Norman and Latitude following legal proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic).
The retailer ran advertisements across Australia between January 2020 and August 2021, promoting a 60-month interest free and no deposit payment method for goods purchased at its stores.
However, Asic was concerned the advertisements masked that consumers were required to take out a credit card, such as the Latitude Go Mastercard, to purchase goods, and were liable to pay monthly account service fees.
The court at the time found that the financial claims in the advertising campaign were misleading, as consumers had to enter into a “fundamentally different” financial arrangement than the one promoted.
Appeals rejected
In November, Harvey Norman and Latitude each filed an application for leave to appeal the declarations.
The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeals during the hearing last week, but said reasons for the decision would be published on a later date.
In the latest announcement, the judges confirmed that the promotional message was misleading.
“The promotional message was clear and very attractive to consumers. It concerned the financial terms on which goods could be purchased at Harvey Norman stores.
“In our view, ordinary and reasonable consumers would have assumed that the offer made in the advertisements was stated accurately, particularly in light of Australia’s strong consumer protection laws,” they said.
In a statement, Asic deputy chair Sarah Court considered the outcome as an important win for consumers.
“Asic took this case because we believed many consumers were unaware of the financial arrangements they were entering into, and they deserved to be fully informed,” she added.
The matter will be listed for a hearing on a date to be set, where Asic will seek pecuniary penalties, adverse publicity orders, an injunction and costs.
This article was first published on sibling website Inside Retail.
