Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Able Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 479

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Able Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 479

The first respondent was bound to alter its signage by the extended deadline and had not done so by 11 June 1999. The second respondent deliberately caused non-compliance with Order 1(a) and failed to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with Order 1(c) in relation to the Cairns signage, so both respondents were guilty of contempt on those charges. The alleged website contempt under Order 4(b) was not proved because untested evidence from Mr Flood raised a possible innocent explanation that the offending pages became publicly accessible by his inadvertent actions without the respondents' knowledge or consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application by Notice of Motion / Reasons for Judgment and Declarations; Penalty Adjourned
Outcome
The Court declared both respondents guilty of contempt in relation to Orders 1(a) and 1(c); the contempt motion was otherwise to be dismissed, with penalty and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['breach of Court Orders' 'corporate Respondent' 'director Liability for Contempt' 'signage Advertising' 'internet Website Compliance']
['contempt of Court' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Court Orders' 'corporate Respondent' 'director Liability for Contempt' 'signage Advertising' 'internet Website Compliance']

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 Application by Notice of Motion / Reasons for Judgment and Declarations; Penalty Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent committed contempt by failing to alter signage specifying rental prices as required by Order 1(a).' 'Whether the first respondent committed contempt by failing to delete the reference to trucks from Cairns billboard signage as required by Order 1(c).' 'Whether the first respondent committed contempt by displaying website pages that did not include the required mileage information as required by Order 4(b).' "Whether the second respondent, as director of the first respondent, took no or no adequate steps to ensure compliance with the Court's orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent was bound to alter its signage by the extended deadline and had not done so by 11 June 1999. The second respondent deliberately caused non-compliance with Order 1(a) and failed to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with Order 1(c) in relation to the Cairns signage, so both respondents were guilty of contempt on those charges. The alleged website contempt under Order 4(b) was not proved because untested evidence from Mr Flood raised a possible innocent explanation that the offending pages became publicly accessible by his inadvertent actions without the respondents' knowledge or consent.

Court Disposition

The Court declared both respondents guilty of contempt in relation to Orders 1(a) and 1(c); the contempt motion was otherwise to be dismissed, with penalty and costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent committed contempt by not altering signage by 11 June 1999 to add prominent text stating "plus mileage" or the number of kilometres included without further charge beside rental price text.' 'The first respondent committed contempt by not altering its Cairns depot billboard signage by 11 June...