Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Taxation Information Services Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1607

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Taxation Information Services Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1607

The admitted failures to comply with paragraphs 3 and 12 of Kiefel J's order were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents made no real attempt to comply with paragraph 3 until September, the second respondent understood the obligation and had not shown that financial circumstances or medical condition justified non-compliance. The first respondent was therefore in contempt for breach of paragraph 3, and the second respondent was in contempt for breach of paragraphs 3 and 12.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Contempt
Outcome
The first respondent and second respondent were held in contempt; the first respondent was fined, the second respondent was committed to prison for the paragraph 3 contempt, no penalty was imposed for the paragraph 12 contempt, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a solicitor and client...
Legal Topics
['breach of Consent Orders' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct Allegations' 'committal for Contempt' 'solicitor and Client Costs']
['contempt of Court' 'consumer Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['breach of Consent Orders' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct Allegations' 'committal for Contempt' 'solicitor and Client 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

Contempt Proceedings / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent was in contempt for failing to send corrective letters by 23 July 1999 as required by paragraph 3 of Kiefel J's order made on 16 July 1999." "Whether the second respondent was in contempt for failing to send corrective letters by 23 July 1999 as required by paragraph 3 of Kiefel J's order made on 16 July 1999." "Whether the second respondent was in contempt for failing to file and serve an affidavit setting out a full mailing list by 20 July 1999 as required by paragraph 12 of Kiefel J's order." 'What penalties and costs orders should be imposed for the contempts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted failures to comply with paragraphs 3 and 12 of Kiefel J's order were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents made no real attempt to comply with paragraph 3 until September, the second respondent understood the obligation and had not shown that financial circumstances or medical condition justified non-compliance. The first respondent was therefore in contempt for breach of paragraph 3, and the second respondent was in contempt for breach of paragraphs 3 and 12.

Court Disposition

The first respondent and second respondent were held in contempt; the first respondent was fined, the second respondent was committed to prison for the paragraph 3 contempt, no penalty was imposed for the paragraph 12 contempt, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a solicitor and client...

Orders

  • ['The first respondent pay a fine of $5,000.' "In connection with the second respondent's failure to comply with paragraph 3 of the order, he be committed to the Melbourne Assessment Prison for the period of three months from this day or until other earlier order." 'A warrant for committal of the second respondent...