Alert! The Unfair Contract Terms Regime Goes Global

Reforms to the unfair contract terms (UCT) regime under the Australian Consumer Law have now been in place for over six months, and Australian businesses have incurred considerable time and expense in updating their contracts and business practices to ensure compliance with the new regime for fear of being forced to pay potential million-dollar penalties. 

However, the High Court has now confirmed that it's not just Australian businesses that need to worry about the UCT regime. In the recent case of Karpik v Carnival plc [2023] HCA 39 (Karpik), it was held that the UCT regime has an 'extraterritorial' application, and thus is capable of applying to contracts entered into by foreign companies carrying on business in Australia. This groundbreaking judgment has established a number of new legal principles that have broad-reaching implications for foreign and local businesses alike.  

In this session, we will take you through the facts and findings of the Karpik decision, specifically unpacking the following important issues: 

• Why the High Court found that the UCT regime had an 'extraterritorial' application; 
• What this finding means for foreign companies carrying on business in Australia; 
• Why 'choice of law' and 'exclusive jurisdiction' clauses were found ineffective to combat the High Court's decision to extend application of the UCT regime abroad; 
• What the decision means for Australian businesses contracting with foreign consumers; and
• What other UCT insights we can glean from the Karpik decision (including further clarity on application of the 'transparency' principle under the UCT regime). 

What is included:

Videos of the presentation in mp4 format.

Paper materials in pdf format.

* This Webcast does not allow WA practitioners to claim CPD points