From:                                                       Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>

Sent:                                                         Wednesday 14 August 2024 12:42

To:                                                            Matthew Dyson; Hoggard, Nicholas; Vaclav Janecek; Jeannie Paterson; Jonathon Moore KC; Kayleen Manwaring; Matthew Hoyle; Neil Foster; obligations@uwo.ca

Subject:                                                   RE: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

The distinctions between.

 

  1. Private rights and public duties
  2. Acts that are malum prohibitum and those malum in se

 

Are important and apply in all times and places.

 

The re-labelling of sanctions for regulatory offences as “civil penalties”, so that they are treated as if no different from claims for compensation for trespass to land, is a disgrace. That it isn’t always seen as such is partially a product of the failure of common lawyers (unlike those in civilian jurisdictions) to take the importance of the divide between private and public/criminal law seriously.

 

In the modern era, the temptation to blur these distinctions is obviously great as those we wish to regulate (polluters despoiling our environment, providers of financial services to consumers) aren’t ones we often have much sympathy with.

R

 

From: Matthew Dyson <matthew.dyson@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Hoggard, Nicholas <Nicholas.Hoggard@lawcommission.gov.uk>; Vaclav Janecek <dt21561@bristol.ac.uk>; Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>; Jonathon Moore KC <jpmoore@vicbar.com.au>; Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>; Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

I agree with you, Nicholas. I am personally not convinced about a clear distinction at almost any time in England, but some other systems claim to have a good one. The test Granville Williams found ultimately the best we could do turned largely on procedure. But at point here, we remain binary in our procedures and our courts. Many other systems have "administrative offences" or similar, which are not exactly criminal or civil. We have never formally and thoroughly done that, though we have toyed around the edges. But there are times when we hold the flaming torch of something being criminal as being important, and lawyers certainly reach for that as a clear case often, even if there's not a clear foundation for its distinction or importance. In my view it's almost like many of us feel a need for the distinction to be there and to work but have never had to make it work properly...

 

From: Hoggard, Nicholas <Nicholas.Hoggard@lawcommission.gov.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 1:21:35 PM
To: Vaclav Janecek <dt21561@bristol.ac.uk>; Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>; Jonathon Moore KC <jpmoore@vicbar.com.au>; Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>; Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

I think the civil/criminal distinction can be somewhat circular, amounting to little more than a question of whether (in England & Wales) it falls within the purview of the DPP/Crown Prosecution Service or whether it is described as an “offence”. The European Convention on Human Rights takes a much more purposive approach to the definition of criminal, which has been held to include various categories of (for example) tax surcharges (ie penalties). Contempt of court is another good example of a regime that is not “criminal” stricto sensu (particularly civil contempt, but even “criminal contempt” falls wholly outwith the criminal justice system) – but that is definitely a criminal offence for the purposes of Art 6 of the ECHR.

 

Best wishes

Nick

 

 

Dr Nicholas Hoggard, Lawyer

Homeland Security Group | Home Office

Law Commission | Ministry of Justice

 

Mobile: 07706 716 099

Email: nicholas.hoggard@lawcommission.gov.uk
nicholas.hoggard@homeoffice.gov.uk

 

 

From: Vaclav Janecek <vaclav.janecek@bristol.ac.uk>
Sent: 14 August 2024 12:20
To: Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>; Jonathon Moore KC <jpmoore@vicbar.com.au>; Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>; Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: RE: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

Dear Jeannie,

And what exactly would constitute a civil penalty under the UK DPA 2018? I am not sure I follow where you are going with this example…

Best wishes,

Václav

 

 

From: Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Jonathon Moore KC <jpmoore@vicbar.com.au>; Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>; Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

Eg the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

 

Jeannie Marie Paterson | The University of Melbourne

 

Professor of Law (Consumer Protection and Emerging Technology)

 

Fairness, Transparency and Coherence (FTC) in Consumer and Credit Protection Project | Melbourne Law School

 

Director of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics | Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

 

The University of Melbourne

 

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/caide

  

T: +61 416869181

E: jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au   

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/jeannie-paterson

 

 

 

From: Jonathon Moore KC <jpmoore@vicbar.com.au>
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 9:08 PM
To: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>, Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>, Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>, Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>, Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>, obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: [EXT] Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

External email: Please exercise caution

 

Although perhaps not as widespread as in Australia, doesn’t the UK also have civil penalties, without the usual protections of the criminal law?

 

Not that I favour the regime…

 

JONATHON MOORE KC | Barrister

 

Ninian Stephen Chambers | Room 1 | Level 38, 140 William St, Melbourne VIC 3000
T +613 9225 8946 | M +61 0401 712 737
Clerk | List A | www.barristers.com.au
205 William Street | Melbourne VIC 3000 | DX 90 Melbourne | T +613 9225 8444
 
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

This email is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me and delete all copies.

 

 

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 8:24 pm
To: Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>, Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>, Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>, Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>, "obligations@uwo.ca" <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

ie a punitive sanction without any of the procedural protections of the criminal law, but with a different label?

 

From: Kayleen Manwaring <kayleen.manwaring@unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 11:11:09 AM
To: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

It does, Matthew, but this is not a criminal remedy under the ACL, rather it's a civil penalty.

 

Sent from my brain

 

From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:39:38 pm
To: Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

Does s.224 not permit the imposition of “pecuniary penalties” for breach of s.21, as a provision of Part 2-2?

 

Matthew Hoyle

Barrister

One Essex Court

 

This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete it immediately and inform the sender immediately.

 

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

 

From: Jeannie Paterson <jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:15 AM
To: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

Rest assured there is no criminal liability for unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, only civil liability.

(The statutory prohibition on unconscionable conduct is closest to undue influence element of aggressive commercial practices in s 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.)

.

 

Jeannie Marie Paterson | The University of Melbourne

 

Professor of Law (Consumer Protection and Emerging Technology)

 

Fairness, Transparency and Coherence (FTC) in Consumer and Credit Protection Project | Melbourne Law School

 

Director of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics | Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

 

The University of Melbourne

 

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/caide

  

T: +61 416869181

E: jeanniep@unimelb.edu.au   

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/about/staff/jeannie-paterson

 

 

 

From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 7:04 PM
To: Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>, obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: [EXT] Re: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

External email: Please exercise caution

 

Thanks Neil. Even by the standards of consumer statutes, criminal and civil liability by reference to “unconscionability” is pretty radical! Our legislation is slightly more specific, prohibiting “misleading” and “aggressive” practices. 

 

On the “knowingly concerned” element, one might compare it to the English decision on unlawful means conspiracy in Racing Partnership [2020] EWCA Civ 1300. The CA, relying on both civil and criminal cases, held that it was not necessary for the defendants to know the means they had agreed to deploy were unlawful in order for them to be liable, provided they know all the facts which make the acts unlawful. There is also no defence of honestly believing (eg based on legal advice) that the steps you have agreed to take are lawful. 

 

Matthew Hoyle

Barrister

One Essex Court

 

This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete this email and immediately inform the sender.

 

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

From: Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:03:12 AM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: ODG: HCA on unconscionable conduct and accessory liability

 

Dear Colleagues;

I thought some might be interested in this decision from the High Court of Australia today: Productivity Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Wills v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2024] HCA 27 (14 August 2024) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2024/27.html .

The issues concern a statutory prohibition on unconscionable conduct (s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law("ACL") provides that persons must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with supply of services, "engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable"), and the accessory liability of a director/manager where a company is found to have engaged in such conduct. The facts involve an education provider in effect deliberately taking on students who it knew would probably not succeed, for the purpose of getting funding for those students.

There are a number of different decisions from members of the court on these issues (apart from a joint judgment from Gageler CJ and Jagot J, all the other 5 members of the court write separately), which range over how to define “unconscionable” in terms of social norms, to the extent of the knowledge required for a company officer to be an accessory, and issues around how a “system” may be unconscionable. The work of colleague Elise Bant is extensively cited, and other ODG colleagues Rachel Leow and Jeannie-Marie Paterson also are mentioned.

For my part I found of particular interest the reference of Steward J to the historical origins of equity’s standards in the background of Christianity – see para [297], while acknowledging of course that “religious-based concepts of conscience have since the seventeenth century been

replaced with particular written rules, based on precedent” ([300]). I discuss the background of the Western legal system in the Christian world-view in my course on “Law and Religion”.

That to one side, there are lots of interesting things in the judgments about how to apply a statutory standard of unconscionability in the modern world.

Regards

Neil

 

 

 

 

NEIL FOSTER

Associate Professor, School of Law and Justice

College of Human and Social Futures,

University of Newcastle, NSW

 

T: +61 2 49217430

E: neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au

 

Further details: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster

My publications: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/ , http://ssrn.com/author=504828 

Blog: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog

 

 

The University of Newcastle
Hunter St & Auckland St, Newcastle NSW 2300

The University of Newcastle

Top 200 University in the world by QS World University Rankings 2021

I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land in which the University resides and pay my respect to Elders past, present and emerging. 
I extend this acknowledgement to the Worimi and Awabakal people of the land in which the Newcastle City campus resides and which I work.

CRICOS Provider 00109J

 

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.

 

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.