Lessons from Owners of Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 351

Every now and then a case comes along that sheds light on some of those Australian Consumer Law (ACL) questions that have been sitting in the background for years without ever receiving a clear answer.

This article looks at two such questions.

First, does the ACL’s $100,000 consumer threshold include GST?

Secondly, where multiple goods are supplied under a single transaction, do you assess that threshold by reference to the total transaction value or the value of the particular goods in question?

In Owners of Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 351 (Strata Plan No 87231), the Federal Court provided useful guidance on both issues.

Let’s start with the GST question

The ACL defines “consumer” by reference to the nature and price of the goods or services acquired rather than the characteristics of the purchaser.

Goods and services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption will generally attract the benefit of the consumer guarantees regardless of price.

The $100,000 threshold does its real work in relation to goods and services that are not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, such as industrial machinery, commercial equipment and other business-oriented acquisitions. Those goods and services may nevertheless be acquired as a consumer if the amount paid or payable for them does not exceed $100,000.

What the legislation does not expressly say, however, is whether that $100,000 figure is assessed on a GST inclusive or GST exclusive basis.

The Strata plan No 87231 case: why the threshold mattered

This claim was brought by two owners corporations, on behalf of owners and tenants of two residential buildings fitted with the Alucobond panels, against the German manufacturer and its exclusive Australian distributor.

The principal allegation was that the Alucobond products were not of merchantable quality because of the fire-spread risk they allegedly created once affixed to a building and their alleged non-compliance with the Building Code of Australia when used as advertised.

Before the Court could consider those allegations, however, it first had to determine whether the developers who originally purchased and installed the panels had acquired them as “consumers” for the purposes of the ACL.

As the panels were not goods of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, the question turned entirely on whether the relevant price fell below the applicable monetary threshold, which at the time that the goods were purchased, was $40,000 (it has since increased to $100,000).

One of the buildings had been fitted with panels costing less than the threshold, so consumer status was not in dispute. The position was different for the second building. There, the panels cost $41,158.68 inclusive of GST, meaning the answer to our first question became critical: is the threshold assessed on a GST inclusive or GST exclusive basis?

How did Strata plan No 87231 treat GST in assessing the ALC consumer threshold?

At trial, the owner’s corporation initially argued that GST payable in respect of the panels should not be included when calculating the relevant price.

However, during the proceedings, the parties ultimately agreed that GST should be included in the calculation and the Court proceeded on that basis.

As a result, the Court did not need to undertake a detailed statutory analysis of the issue.

However, the position ultimately adopted by the parties appears to have been influenced by an interesting provision in Australia’s GST legislation.

Section 177-12 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) provides that, unless a contrary intention appears, a reference in a Commonwealth Act to a price relating to a supply is taken to include the net GST payable on that supply. Neither the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) nor the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) appears to express a contrary intention.

While the Court ultimately had no need to determine the point for itself, section 177-12 provides a compelling explanation for why the parties ultimately accepted that GST should be included when calculating the relevant price.

Why this matters

While Strata Plan No 87231 does not conclusively determine the GST issue, it provides support for what many practitioners have long suspected: the safer view is that the relevant threshold is likely to be assessed on a GST inclusive basis.

For businesses operating close to the $100,000 threshold, that distinction may determine whether the consumer guarantees apply at all.

One down, one to go

That brings us to our second question: where multiple goods are supplied under a single transaction, is the relevant threshold assessed by reference to the transaction as a whole or the particular goods in question?

In other words, is the $100,000 threshold assessed per item, or across the whole transaction?

Strata Plan No 87231 also considered how the threshold applies where a transaction involves multiple identifiable goods rather than a single item.

In determining whether the panels fell within the monetary threshold, the Court looked at the price of each individual cladding panel rather than the combined price paid for all of the panels supplied under the contract.

The Court focused on the wording of section 3(1) of the ACL, which asks whether a person acquired “particular goods” as a consumer. In the Court’s view, that language directs attention to the goods in question rather than the total value of a broader transaction in which those goods happened to be supplied.

The Court also considered that the purpose of the threshold is to extend consumer protections to lower-value goods that are not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use. That purpose would be undermined if the application of the threshold depended upon how a transaction happened to be structured, bundled or invoiced.

On that basis, even though the aggregate cost of all of the panels exceeded the threshold, each individual panel was priced well below it. The threshold was therefore satisfied.

What about bundled goods and services?

Strata Plan No 87231 also addressed the position where goods and services are supplied together for a single bundled price.

The cladding panels were purchased alongside installation services, and the contract reflected that mixed supply.

Consistently with the mixed supply provisions in section 3(5) of the ACL, the relevant enquiry was not the bundled contract price. Instead, the focus was on the price at which the particular goods in question could reasonably have been acquired separately.

This is an important point. Bundling goods together with services will not necessarily take a transaction outside the consumer guarantee regime. The statutory focus remains on the value of the relevant goods rather than the overall contract price.

Practical takeaways

Two useful principles emerge from Strata plan No 87231.

1. The decision lends support to a GST inclusive approach
   While the Court did not finally determine the issue, the parties agreed that GST should be included in the threshold calculation and the Court proceeded on that basis. Businesses operating close to the $100,000 threshold should therefore exercise caution before assuming that a GST exclusive price is the relevant figure.
2. Look at the individual item, not the entire transaction
   Where multiple identifiable goods are supplied, the threshold is assessed by reference to the price of the particular goods in question, rather than the total value of the transaction in which they were supplied. The same principle applies where goods and services are bundled together. In that situation, the legislation directs attention to the value of the particular goods in question, rather than the bundled contract price. Taken together, these principles demonstrate that the $100,000 threshold is not always applied in the way many assume. A supply worth several hundred thousand dollars in aggregate may nevertheless fall within the consumer guarantee regime if the relevant goods are individually below the threshold. Equally, a transaction that appears to fall below the threshold on a GST exclusive basis may not do so once GST is taken into account.

How can we help?

If this article has reminded you of one thing, it is probably that some of the most interesting ACL questions arise from provisions that look deceptively simple. Our consumer law team spends a lot of its time helping clients navigate those questions, whether they relate to consumer guarantees, unfair contract terms, misleading conduct or broader compliance obligations under the ACL. Please contact us if you would like more information about how we can assist.

This article was written by Teresa Torcasio, Partner, Kaitlyn Firnigl, Solicitor, and Hana Kolar, Law Graduate.