Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jayco Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 94

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jayco Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 94

Although the second respondent's 2001 promotional activities were flagrant breaches of the Court's 3 November 1997 orders and would otherwise have warranted severe punishment, the combination of his mental health evidence, cooperation, refunds, limited number of affected purchasers, financial hardship, and the substantial deterrent effect of solicitor-client costs justified imposing a reduced fine of $9,000 together with solicitor-client costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceeding Arising From Breaches of Consent Orders Made in Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Proceedings / Punishment for Conceded Contempt; Orders Made
Outcome
The second respondent was punished for contempt by a fine of $9,000 and an order to pay the applicant's costs taxed as between solicitor and client, with stays for payment and liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['breach of Federal Court Consent Orders' 'misleading Product Promotion' 'penalty for Contempt' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'mitigation']
['contempt of Court' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['breach of Federal Court Consent Orders' 'misleading Product Promotion' 'penalty for Contempt' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'mitigation']

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 of Court Proceeding Arising From Breaches of Consent Orders Made in Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Proceedings / Punishment for Conceded Contempt; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on the second respondent for conceded breaches between April and December 2001 of orders made on 3 November 1997.' "Whether the second respondent should pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity or solicitor-client basis." "What effect the second respondent's mental health, cooperation, refunds, limited sales, financial circumstances and losses should have on the penalty."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the second respondent's 2001 promotional activities were flagrant breaches of the Court's 3 November 1997 orders and would otherwise have warranted severe punishment, the combination of his mental health evidence, cooperation, refunds, limited number of affected purchasers, financial hardship, and the substantial deterrent effect of solicitor-client costs justified imposing a reduced fine of $9,000 together with solicitor-client costs.

Court Disposition

The second respondent was punished for contempt by a fine of $9,000 and an order to pay the applicant's costs taxed as between solicitor and client, with stays for payment and liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['A fine of $9,000 be imposed on the second respondent for his contempt of Court constituted by breaches between April and December 2001 of orders of the Court made on 3 November 1997.' "The second respondent pay the applicant's costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client if not agreed." 'There be a stay of 60...