Australian Communications and Media Authority v FHT Travel Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 550

Australian Communications and Media Authority v FHT Travel Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 550

The admitted facts and evidence showed that the first respondent made numerous telemarketing calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Register contrary to the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth). The second respondent, as sole director and person supervising management, was aware shortly after 2 September 2008 that calls were being made without regard to the register and authorised the pleaded calls, thereby procuring the contraventions. Significant relief was justified, but no pecuniary penalty was imposed on the second respondent because she was in bankruptcy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding Under the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (cth) / Trial; Respondents Did Not Appear and Facts in the Statement of Claim Were Treated as Admitted Under O 32
Outcome
Claims of contravention established; declarations and injunction to be made; pecuniary penalty imposed on the first respondent only; costs ordered against the respondents.
Legal Topics
['do Not Call Register' 'telemarketing Calls' 'knowing Involvement in Contraventions' 'injunctive Relief' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'costs']
['communications and Media Law' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Penalties'] ['do Not Call Register' 'telemarketing Calls' 'knowing Involvement in Contraventions' 'injunctive Relief' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'costs']

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

Civil Penalty Proceeding Under the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (cth) / Trial; Respondents Did Not Appear and Facts in the Statement of Claim Were Treated as Admitted Under O 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent made telemarketing calls to Australian numbers registered on the Do Not Call Register contrary to s 11(1) of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth).' "Whether the second respondent authorised, and therefore procured, the first respondent's contraventions." 'Whether declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties and costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted facts and evidence showed that the first respondent made numerous telemarketing calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Register contrary to the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth). The second respondent, as sole director and person supervising management, was aware shortly after 2 September 2008 that calls were being made without regard to the register and authorised the pleaded calls, thereby procuring the contraventions. Significant relief was justified, but no pecuniary penalty was imposed on the second respondent because she was in bankruptcy.

Court Disposition

Claims of contravention established; declarations and injunction to be made; pecuniary penalty imposed on the first respondent only; costs ordered against the respondents.

Orders

  • ['The applicant was to bring in a declaration that the first respondent infringed s 11(1) on numerous occasions by making calls fitting the description in s 5.' 'The applicant was to bring in a declaration that the second respondent authorised, and therefore procured, those contraventions.' 'The first and second...