Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 9) [2010] FCA 1007

Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 9) [2010] FCA 1007

The Sixth Respondent, Mr Josef Vaysman, was found guilty of ten charges of contempt for willful disobedience of court orders relating to counterfeit goods production and assets disclosure. Despite mitigatory factors such as advanced age and health issues, the seriousness and repeated nature of his contempt, absence of genuine remorse, and the need for deterrence justified a term of imprisonment, partially suspended for health and humanitarian reasons, but not wholly suspended.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings (within Civil Intellectual Property Litigation) / Sentencing/penalty (final Disposition)
Outcome
Guilty of contempt; partially suspended custodial sentence; costs order for applicant.
Legal Topics
['disobedience of Court Orders' 'standard of Proof for Contempt' 'sentencing for Contempt' 'mitigation in Sentencing' 'general and Specific Deterrence']
['contempt of Court' 'intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['disobedience of Court Orders' 'standard of Proof for Contempt' 'sentencing for Contempt' 'mitigation in Sentencing' 'general and Specific Deterrence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings (within Civil Intellectual Property Litigation) / Sentencing/penalty (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was guilty of contempt for contravention of court orders' 'What penalty is appropriate for repeated contempt in light of mitigating factors such as age, health, and delay' 'How the parity principle in sentencing should be applied between co-offenders' 'Whether age and health suffice to justify a suspended sentence for contempt']

Ratio Decidendi

The Sixth Respondent, Mr Josef Vaysman, was found guilty of ten charges of contempt for willful disobedience of court orders relating to counterfeit goods production and assets disclosure. Despite mitigatory factors such as advanced age and health issues, the seriousness and repeated nature of his contempt, absence of genuine remorse, and the need for deterrence justified a term of imprisonment, partially suspended for health and humanitarian reasons, but not wholly suspended.

Court Disposition

Guilty of contempt; partially suspended custodial sentence; costs order for applicant.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the Sixth Respondent is guilty of contempt for specific charges (Amended Statement of Charge dated 14 March 2008: Charges 36, 37, 52, 55, 57, 61, 67; Statement of Charge dated 10 March 2009: Charges 4, 5, 12).' 'The Sixth Respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for various periods (ranging from 1...