Australian car dealers lose again as court rules in favour of Mercedes-Benz
The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal, filed in 2024, against a judgement it handed down in 2023.
In that ruling, where it found in favour of Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific over a majority (38 of 50) of its franchised dealers, the Court found dealers hadn't been misled about the agency move and that Mercedes-Benz hadn't engaged in unconscionable conduct.
The Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) said it's "bitterly disappointed" by today's decision, particularly as it follows the Supreme Court of Victoria's ruling earlier this year which found General Motors didn't breach its agreement with Australian dealers when it axed the Holden brand in 2020.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
It's pushing for the Federal Government to introduce additional protections for automotive franchisees "so that the blueprint created by this court decision is not used by others".
"We welcome the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in this matter. Our focus continues to be on delivering luxury products and services for our valued customers around Australia," said a spokesperson for Mercedes-Benz.
At the heart of the original case, which commenced in October 2021, was the compensation Mercedes-Benz offered to dealers, although Justice Beach indicated Australian franchise law may once again need to be revisited and potentially modified.
"Australian dealers have been fighting to stop Mercedes-Benz using their power over franchised dealers to force them into one-sided business relationships. Today's decision is a significant blow to that fight which will have detrimental effects on Australia's franchising sector," said AADA CEO James Voortman.
"In handing down today's decision, there is now a clear need to protect Australian franchisees against unfair treatment from franchisors to arbitrarily change business models with no compensation.
"The presiding Judge in the original court decision clearly articulated the need for further amendments to the Franchising Code to protect the investments dealers make in their businesses.
"Today's decision confirms that current laws in Australia do not adequately protect new car dealers against unfair conduct and particularly are not being supported against unfair decisions being made in head office overseas.
"It is imperative that the Federal Government moves at speed to implement the commitments it made in the election to protect franchisees against unfair contract terms and unfair trading practices."
The move to an agency retail model resulted in Mercedes-Benz taking ownership of dealership stock, and removing the ability for customers and dealership staff to negotiate on prices – a change which dealers claimed would drive up prices of new models.
At the time of the initial court action, the 38 dealers were pursuing approximately $650 million in compensation.
Mercedes-Benz isn't the only auto brand to switch to an agency model in Australia, with Honda also doing the same – also resulting in legal action from some of its dealers.
Like Honda, Mercedes-Benz experienced a sales downturn after the switch in January 2022.
Deliveries of vehicles from its Cars division fell from 28,348 in 2021 to 26,801 in 2022, before dropping again in 2023 to 24,315 and then 19,989 in 2024.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel, it would appear, with deliveries in the first half of 2025 up 15.9 per cent on the same period last year to 11,146 in total – its best first-half of a year since 2023.
MORE: Everything Mercedes-Benz
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
The head of the peak body for car dealers in Australia has slammed a Federal Court appeal decision that found in favour of Mercedes-Benz over dealers unhappy with its move to an agency sales model.
The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal, filed in 2024, against a judgement it handed down in 2023.
In that ruling, where it found in favour of Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific over a majority (38 of 50) of its franchised dealers, the Court found dealers hadn't been misled about the agency move and that Mercedes-Benz hadn't engaged in unconscionable conduct.
The Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) said it's "bitterly disappointed" by today's decision, particularly as it follows the Supreme Court of Victoria's ruling earlier this year which found General Motors didn't breach its agreement with Australian dealers when it axed the Holden brand in 2020.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
It's pushing for the Federal Government to introduce additional protections for automotive franchisees "so that the blueprint created by this court decision is not used by others".
"We welcome the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in this matter. Our focus continues to be on delivering luxury products and services for our valued customers around Australia," said a spokesperson for Mercedes-Benz.
At the heart of the original case, which commenced in October 2021, was the compensation Mercedes-Benz offered to dealers, although Justice Beach indicated Australian franchise law may once again need to be revisited and potentially modified.
"Australian dealers have been fighting to stop Mercedes-Benz using their power over franchised dealers to force them into one-sided business relationships. Today's decision is a significant blow to that fight which will have detrimental effects on Australia's franchising sector," said AADA CEO James Voortman.
"In handing down today's decision, there is now a clear need to protect Australian franchisees against unfair treatment from franchisors to arbitrarily change business models with no compensation.
"The presiding Judge in the original court decision clearly articulated the need for further amendments to the Franchising Code to protect the investments dealers make in their businesses.
"Today's decision confirms that current laws in Australia do not adequately protect new car dealers against unfair conduct and particularly are not being supported against unfair decisions being made in head office overseas.
"It is imperative that the Federal Government moves at speed to implement the commitments it made in the election to protect franchisees against unfair contract terms and unfair trading practices."
The move to an agency retail model resulted in Mercedes-Benz taking ownership of dealership stock, and removing the ability for customers and dealership staff to negotiate on prices – a change which dealers claimed would drive up prices of new models.
At the time of the initial court action, the 38 dealers were pursuing approximately $650 million in compensation.
Mercedes-Benz isn't the only auto brand to switch to an agency model in Australia, with Honda also doing the same – also resulting in legal action from some of its dealers.
Like Honda, Mercedes-Benz experienced a sales downturn after the switch in January 2022.
Deliveries of vehicles from its Cars division fell from 28,348 in 2021 to 26,801 in 2022, before dropping again in 2023 to 24,315 and then 19,989 in 2024.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel, it would appear, with deliveries in the first half of 2025 up 15.9 per cent on the same period last year to 11,146 in total – its best first-half of a year since 2023.
MORE: Everything Mercedes-Benz
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
The head of the peak body for car dealers in Australia has slammed a Federal Court appeal decision that found in favour of Mercedes-Benz over dealers unhappy with its move to an agency sales model.
The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal, filed in 2024, against a judgement it handed down in 2023.
In that ruling, where it found in favour of Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific over a majority (38 of 50) of its franchised dealers, the Court found dealers hadn't been misled about the agency move and that Mercedes-Benz hadn't engaged in unconscionable conduct.
The Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) said it's "bitterly disappointed" by today's decision, particularly as it follows the Supreme Court of Victoria's ruling earlier this year which found General Motors didn't breach its agreement with Australian dealers when it axed the Holden brand in 2020.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
It's pushing for the Federal Government to introduce additional protections for automotive franchisees "so that the blueprint created by this court decision is not used by others".
"We welcome the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in this matter. Our focus continues to be on delivering luxury products and services for our valued customers around Australia," said a spokesperson for Mercedes-Benz.
At the heart of the original case, which commenced in October 2021, was the compensation Mercedes-Benz offered to dealers, although Justice Beach indicated Australian franchise law may once again need to be revisited and potentially modified.
"Australian dealers have been fighting to stop Mercedes-Benz using their power over franchised dealers to force them into one-sided business relationships. Today's decision is a significant blow to that fight which will have detrimental effects on Australia's franchising sector," said AADA CEO James Voortman.
"In handing down today's decision, there is now a clear need to protect Australian franchisees against unfair treatment from franchisors to arbitrarily change business models with no compensation.
"The presiding Judge in the original court decision clearly articulated the need for further amendments to the Franchising Code to protect the investments dealers make in their businesses.
"Today's decision confirms that current laws in Australia do not adequately protect new car dealers against unfair conduct and particularly are not being supported against unfair decisions being made in head office overseas.
"It is imperative that the Federal Government moves at speed to implement the commitments it made in the election to protect franchisees against unfair contract terms and unfair trading practices."
The move to an agency retail model resulted in Mercedes-Benz taking ownership of dealership stock, and removing the ability for customers and dealership staff to negotiate on prices – a change which dealers claimed would drive up prices of new models.
At the time of the initial court action, the 38 dealers were pursuing approximately $650 million in compensation.
Mercedes-Benz isn't the only auto brand to switch to an agency model in Australia, with Honda also doing the same – also resulting in legal action from some of its dealers.
Like Honda, Mercedes-Benz experienced a sales downturn after the switch in January 2022.
Deliveries of vehicles from its Cars division fell from 28,348 in 2021 to 26,801 in 2022, before dropping again in 2023 to 24,315 and then 19,989 in 2024.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel, it would appear, with deliveries in the first half of 2025 up 15.9 per cent on the same period last year to 11,146 in total – its best first-half of a year since 2023.
MORE: Everything Mercedes-Benz
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
The head of the peak body for car dealers in Australia has slammed a Federal Court appeal decision that found in favour of Mercedes-Benz over dealers unhappy with its move to an agency sales model.
The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal, filed in 2024, against a judgement it handed down in 2023.
In that ruling, where it found in favour of Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific over a majority (38 of 50) of its franchised dealers, the Court found dealers hadn't been misled about the agency move and that Mercedes-Benz hadn't engaged in unconscionable conduct.
The Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) said it's "bitterly disappointed" by today's decision, particularly as it follows the Supreme Court of Victoria's ruling earlier this year which found General Motors didn't breach its agreement with Australian dealers when it axed the Holden brand in 2020.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
It's pushing for the Federal Government to introduce additional protections for automotive franchisees "so that the blueprint created by this court decision is not used by others".
"We welcome the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in this matter. Our focus continues to be on delivering luxury products and services for our valued customers around Australia," said a spokesperson for Mercedes-Benz.
At the heart of the original case, which commenced in October 2021, was the compensation Mercedes-Benz offered to dealers, although Justice Beach indicated Australian franchise law may once again need to be revisited and potentially modified.
"Australian dealers have been fighting to stop Mercedes-Benz using their power over franchised dealers to force them into one-sided business relationships. Today's decision is a significant blow to that fight which will have detrimental effects on Australia's franchising sector," said AADA CEO James Voortman.
"In handing down today's decision, there is now a clear need to protect Australian franchisees against unfair treatment from franchisors to arbitrarily change business models with no compensation.
"The presiding Judge in the original court decision clearly articulated the need for further amendments to the Franchising Code to protect the investments dealers make in their businesses.
"Today's decision confirms that current laws in Australia do not adequately protect new car dealers against unfair conduct and particularly are not being supported against unfair decisions being made in head office overseas.
"It is imperative that the Federal Government moves at speed to implement the commitments it made in the election to protect franchisees against unfair contract terms and unfair trading practices."
The move to an agency retail model resulted in Mercedes-Benz taking ownership of dealership stock, and removing the ability for customers and dealership staff to negotiate on prices – a change which dealers claimed would drive up prices of new models.
At the time of the initial court action, the 38 dealers were pursuing approximately $650 million in compensation.
Mercedes-Benz isn't the only auto brand to switch to an agency model in Australia, with Honda also doing the same – also resulting in legal action from some of its dealers.
Like Honda, Mercedes-Benz experienced a sales downturn after the switch in January 2022.
Deliveries of vehicles from its Cars division fell from 28,348 in 2021 to 26,801 in 2022, before dropping again in 2023 to 24,315 and then 19,989 in 2024.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel, it would appear, with deliveries in the first half of 2025 up 15.9 per cent on the same period last year to 11,146 in total – its best first-half of a year since 2023.
MORE: Everything Mercedes-Benz
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The conman, the jet and the Australian developer who helped bring him down
Ahsan Ali Syed had all the trappings of wealth: a private jet, a luxury Swiss apartment overlooking Lake Lucerne, an opulent office in Bahrain and a top-tier Spanish football team, Racing Santander. But after a decade on the run, the jet-setting fraudster is behind bars in Switzerland, largely due to the efforts of Sydney property developer Keith Johnson and New Zealander Mark Van Leewarden, a former undercover cop turned barrister who specialises in international fraud investigations. From September 2010 to May 2011, Syed scammed close to $50 million from Australian and New Zealand businesspeople who had trouble getting finance in the wake of the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis. 'He used an opulent office in Bahrain to lure the victims,' said Van Leewarden, who has spent years in pursuit of Syed. From all accounts, Syed looked the part sitting at his polished desk, wearing a silk cravat, bejewelled fingers and surrounded by busts of horse heads. His company, Western Gulf Advisory (WGA), boasted that 'Mr Ali is a trusted adviser of royal individuals and families, high-profile luminaries and people of public importance'. He also claimed to have a family fortune of $8 billion to invest. The truth was far different. Syed was wanted in India over an immigration racket and, having moved to London, he fled from there in 2005 owing £7800 ($12,520) in rent, along with a string of unpaid bills. Three years later he set up WGA and began his scam, offering loans of up to $US200 million. However, borrowers had to stump up an establishment fee worth 1.6 per cent of the loan. The promised loans to his 23 victims never eventuated.
