25/09/2026
When is it okay for industry leaders to raise concerns about misleading business practices?
Earlier this week, I was in a commercial law lecture with Prof Jagdeep Singh. The topic was the Fair Trading Act, and we covered some New Zealand case law, including Carter Holt Harvey(CHH) v Cottonsoft, in which CHH took action under the FTA against Cottonsoft for claiming its product was made in New Zealand, when in fact the toilet tissue was produced overseas, imported in large rolls, and then cut, re-rolled and embossed in New Zealand.
A key point the court had to determine was whether CHH entitled to bring the action as an industry competitor. It could, and there is actually a long line of cases in which the courts have allowed industry competitors to challenge misleading business practices of their rivals. There was no issue of “standing”.
The Immigration Adviser Authority (IAA) claims the regulatory framework does not allow immigration advisers to raise complaints to it about the misleading business practices of other immigration firms. It is only able to handle complaints if they relate directly to immigration matters and the complainant must have “standing”.
Stuff has just run an article about formerly licensed Immigration Adviser Jens Mueller, who set up a number of companies with official-sounding names, many of them surprisingly similar to official government bodies.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361038335/mouth-foamers-professor-hits-back-over-his-official-sounding-immigration-bodies
I asked Professor Singh whether companies with such official-sounding names might fall foul of the Fair Trading Act and whether industry competitors might bring proceedings for misleading business practices. Her response was priceless: firstly complete incredulity that anyone would be so foolish as to establish companies with names like that, and then confirmation that rival companies would certainly have no issue of “standing” that might prevent them from pursuing a cause of action under the FTA where they thought a rival company was engaging in misleading business practices.
Carter Holt Harvey's "mouth-foaming" against Cottonsoft ultimately resulted in a significant Fair Trading Act judgment concerning misleading country-of-origin claims.
Action under the FTA could seek to address potentially misleading practices by companies Mueller established, but it does seem more appropriate for the regulatory authorities to step in.
So where companies use official-sounding names to sound like government agencies, should not government step in to prevent them this ‘passing off’, so that the public and international migrants are not misled?
What does everyone think?
Immigration professionals say it could mislead migrants, he says they’re just jealous.
