Completely agree.
The legal eagles said that it wasn’t worth pursuing him as his business a shell company, and he was bankrupt. Yet, like Christopher Skase, he could maintain his chosen lifestyle and career uninterrupted and unhindered by all the people he had wronged.
As I am wont to say, our courts are about the law, and not about justice.
The are supposed to intersect, but as laws are the provenance of pollies what are the chances?
So true! My lawyers and barristers have said the same thing when I’ve stated ‘I just want justice’ (idealistically thinking that the law was there to protect us).
From my experience the law is there for criminals and making lawyers rich… that’s it.
I have , in the past, contacted ASIC with proof of a director breaking all the rules. ASIC agreed whole heartedly that they were doing exactly that but told me it was up to me to take them to court.
I tried NCAT after my VW sunroof leaked from slack servicing and wrote the car off… they sent a very old gentleman up from Sydney to hear the case… he admitted he didn’t have time to read the case and awarded the other side because I did not have enough “expert evidence”… totally going against NCATs own regulations!
My opinion is the law in this country is failing all but the criminals and lawyers.
It is not just Australia or our xCATs.
I once participated in an international trade dispute court where the lead commissioner (eg judge) was on record as saying ‘the only thing I know about this topic is what I learn from my teenage son.’ 100% of the preferred winner’s ‘evidence’ was taken at face value and perhaps 50% of the ‘guilty as claimed’ side’s expert testimony was ignored. The ‘preferred side’ won.
The judicial system is not just about law, it is also about procedure and the procedure is often above law and justice is not in the equation excepting as embodied (or not) in law and procedure. Since lawyers will defend your rights to your last dollar, and lawyers have a strong influence in the drafting of legislation, any surprises there?
This sounds similar to my experience at NCAT in 2016. At the first group list hearing, the tribunal member made it quite clear that she was treating my case as if it was one of poor vehicle servicing by the car dealer, when in fact it was a matter of fraud in that the vehicle odometer had been wound back before sale. The dealer claimed that his company had been wound-up, but brought no evidence to the hearing.
The tribunal member asked if I wanted a follow-up hearing, to allow time for evidence of the company’s financial standing to be produced. I said yes.
At the second hearing, a different tribunal member cut to the chase, and agreed that I had been overcharged in the original sale, and was owed a refund. He couldn’t have been more different to the first ! It seems that it is the luck of the draw when you attend a hearing 
The dealer showed up, but still brought no evidence with him “because he wasn’t told to do so by the tribunal”.
It took action through the local court to obtain the financial details of the company. Long story short, there was nothing left, and I got no refund.
Would I be correct thinking the principle is in business again under another business name, perhaps with similar dodgy practices and no relevant history available to warn the general public?
I’ve done some extensive searching for both the dealer principle and his wife, and have turned up zilch.
For the time being, at least, it seems that they have gone to ground.
At the NCAT hearing, I couldn’t help but laugh when he said, “I’m not a shonky used car dealer ! I’ve been in business for more than 15 years. That wouldn’t be the case if I was shonky.”. In the next breath, he’s telling the tribunal that he’s no longer in business. He explained this as being due to “changing market conditions”. 
I seriously believe directors should have numbers rather than companies… the reality is it’s not the companies that are dodgy (as they are just bots dressed in suits) but the people who run them. You can shut down a company and move on but it would be a bit harder to shut down a person and move on one would think.
I am in court with a guy who has had so many dodgy companies and phoenix operations that you’d think it would be easy to see what’s going on but since his wife is a barrister, they’re well versed in the ‘peculiarities’ of our legal system… so 3 years on and a hideous amount of money and I’m still living a Kafka novel.
Maybe there is a new business opportunity for Choice, being the enforcers of the ACL where they take action against businesses on behalf of disheartened consumers… just like the RSPCA does for animal protection legislation.
Sometimes people put the companies in their child’s/children’s or third parties names to avoid their name/s appearing on company searches (look at the Tax Haven companies). The Trust documents attached to that often are more reflective of the control wielded by people.
Shareholders then only become holders in trust or non-beneficiary shareholders. Easy to do and these days almost cut and paste to write the documents.
This article in The Conversation discusses a potential gap in the Australian Consumer Law, following the court case against Valve.
And what are considered tough laws?
In November last year the QBCC announced that there are now new laws in place to get tough on dodgy building products (https://www.qbcc.qld.gov.au/media-releases/australias-toughest-building-product-safety-laws-start)… However, recently a company selling dodgy fire safe cladding, after numerous complains from the public, admitted to QLD Fair Trading that they had given false and misleading claims about their product… They got a $13k fine… imagine if someone was relying on that cladding to save their life in a fire.
Once again, when will the people running these dodgy companies be held accountable?
Do you think they read this forum? Blind Freddy hath finally spoken.
Hardly…
Doesn’t mean anything if the companies never get taken to court. Breach the ACL? Oh well, up to the consumer to foot the bill to deal with that. ACCC only goes after companies that get them in the headlines, never helps out consumers.
Probably they do read some stuff here, I also think Choice taps into lines of communication we don’t see, as do other consumer groups. I think the discussions that occur here certainly help power those communications and may even empower other groups with added fuel to their points.
But seriously the ACCC have had lots of time to address these concerns previously and what have they done? Very little in comparison to what they could have done. What raised this as an issue more so than discussions in this forum? The OECD report (not that the ACCC wouldn’t have been aware of the paltry levels of fines already), it becomes a large public disclosure of the paltriness. So it comes down to in my opinion, embarrassment in the face of public disclosure.
Also let’s not confuse what Mr Sims is discussing (not saying we are, just clarifying as @cameron_eldridge made reference to ACL ):
"Part IV of the CCA prohibits anti-competitive practices such as:
with
"Australian Consumer Law
Contraventions of the ACL in respect to the following conduct will attract a pecuniary penalty:
unconscionable conduct
false or misleading conduct
pyramid selling
failure to respond to, or provide false or misleading information in response to, a substantiation notice
various product safety provisions."
which attract a much lesser penalty
"The maximum penalty for false or misleading and unconscionable conduct, pyramid selling and breaches of relevant product safety provisions is:
$220 000 for individuals.
Lesser civil penalties apply to other contraventions."
The latter ACL contravention section also needs increasing of penalties and enforcement. Let’s see fine calculations/awards at 10% of turnover for corporations and for individuals… This should mean total turnover and not just in relation to a single item’s sales history. I am sure we will see marked improvement in behaviour if these levels of fines became the normal outcome for breaches of ACL. When I say normal I mean let’s see the ACCC actually taking on substantially more cases and seeking increased penalties when doing so.
We also need to see more imprisonment of those who instigate, carry out, and help to enable the breaches.
3 years and a few weeks ago we bought a Hoover washer and dryer for our newly weds. At the time Hoover was The Good Guys house brand. There was a 3-year warranty. They worked well.
A few days after the warranty expired the dryer had a ‘machine down’ fault. Rang Hoover Appliances for service and they responded they would open a warranty claim with the manufacturer. it took a week to get an assessment visit, followed by a week to get the report - unrepairable.
The Good Guys no longer sell Hoover appliances but overnight a store credit was arranged since our model was no longer available. While we know we could have asked for money back under the ACL, a product survey concluded an Electrolux model from The Good Guys was one of the overall best replacement options so we were happy with the credit. Making it better, The Good Guys matched the best sale price from a competitor and threw in delivery.
It could not have gone any better. 4 hours after accepting / agreeing the new unit was in the laundry room. No to and fro having to quote the ACL either but it probably affected the ‘back room’ decision making.
Regardless well done to Hoover Appliances and The Good Guys (Northland Vic) for setting a high bar.
