01/05/2024
3 What Wednesdays #28 - The legal implications of ticking a checkbox
On Wednesdays (other than wearing pink) we’ll bring you a legal update so you can up your legal knowledge game. Taleen, our local high school work experience student from Oran Park Anglican College is back again this week; over to you!
What?
The plaintiff (Gispac) in the matter of Gispac Pty Ltd v Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 18 had, since 2003, supplied paper bags and packing material to jewellery stores operated by the defendant (Michael Hill). In the case, Gispac alleged that Michael Hill breached terms from 2012, leading to a loss. Michael Hill argued that these terms were not part of later agreements. However, later agreements included a checkbox linking to the 2012 terms, which was ticked by Michael Hill's manager.
So What?
The NSW Supreme Court found that the checkbox sufficiently incorporated the 2012 terms, rejecting Michael Hill's arguments based on the Australian Consumer Law and penalty clauses. Consequently, Michael Hill was ordered to pay damages of $2.26M plus interest. They may appeal this decision.
Now What?
It's crucial to ensure that terms are easily accessible and that parties are given reasonable opportunities to review them before agreeing. Additionally, businesses should be aware that courts may interpret actions such as ticking a checkbox as sufficient to incorporate terms, even if the terms themselves are not directly presented or accessible at the time of agreement.
If you found today’s 3 What Wednesdays legal update interesting, hit us up with a follow on our page or subscribe to our quarterly newsletter ‘The Memo’ by sending an email to [email protected]. If there are topics you’d like to see covered, we’d love to hear from you.
For all your business law needs, we’re your local corporate + commercial lawyers.
Park & Hills
City Expertise: Local Focus