Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

Federal Court of Australia

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

31/08/2016

LITIGATION TYPE

Corporate Accountability

SUBJECT MATTER

Misleading and deceptive conduct

REVIEW TYPE

Judicial review

SUMMARY

CONSUMER LAW – Volkswagen and Audi dieselgate scandal – admitted contraventions of s 29(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft – two regulatory proceedings settled as between the regulator, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and Volkswagen, its subsidiaries and affiliates – whether the agreed pecuniary penalty is appropriate within the meaning of s 224(1) of the ACL and having regard to all relevant circumstances – consideration of relevant matters in determining the amount of the requisite pecuniary penalty – agreed penalty held to be manifestly inadequate and not appropriate – higher penalty imposed – whether declarations substantially in accordance with the parties’ settlement should be made – whether agreed costs order should be made

CONSUMER LAW – admitted contraventions of s 29(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law by appellant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft – where regulatory proceedings settled as between the regulator, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and Volkswagen and its subsidiaries and affiliates – where the parties jointly proposed an agreed pecuniary penalty as part of the settlement – where the primary judge found that the agreed pecuniary penalty was not appropriate within the meaning of s 224(1) of the Australian Consumer Law – where the primary judge held that the agreed pecuniary penalty was manifestly inadequate – where the primary judge imposed a higher civil pecuniary penalty APPEAL – appeal from a judgment imposing a higher penalty than the agreed pecuniary penalty between the parties – whether the primary judge erred in determining that the agreed pecuniary penalty was not appropriate – whether the imposed higher penalty was manifestly excessive – relevant principles regarding the determination of an appropriate civil pecuniary penalty – whether the primary judge considered all relevant matters in determining the civil pecuniary penalty pursuant to s 224(1) of the Australian Consumer Law – where the parties did not demonstrate appealable error by the primary judge – where appellate intervention was not warranted – appeal dismissed

CASE DOCUMENTS

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft [2019] FCA 2166
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2021] FCAFC 49