Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Business Reports Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 895

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Business Reports Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 895

The first charge was not proved because the post-19 December letters and forms did not make the prohibited representations alleged. The second charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt: by sending invoices after 19 December 1996 in respect of pre-19 December application forms containing the proscribed representations, the respondents either communicated acceptance of offers and entered contracts for the supply of the Register after the orders, or insisted upon and promoted supply of the Register on the basis of the earlier prohibited representations. The conduct breached Order 1(a) and (b), was intentional, and occurred with knowledge of the orders; both respondents were therefore guilty...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Contempt Motion in Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contraventions of S52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Judgment on the Applicant's Motion That the Respondents Be Found Guilty of Contempt of Interlocutory Orders Made on 19 December 1996
Outcome
Respondents found guilty of contempt; applicant awarded indemnity costs of the contempt application.
Legal Topics
['breach of Interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'supply or Promotion of Business Register' 'civil Contempt Standard of Proof' 'acceptance of Contractual Offers']
['contempt of Court' 'consumer Protection' 'trade Practices' 'contract Law'] ['breach of Interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'supply or Promotion of Business Register' 'civil Contempt Standard of Proof' 'acceptance of Contractual Offers']

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 Motion in Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contraventions of S52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Judgment on the Applicant's Motion That the Respondents Be Found Guilty of Contempt of Interlocutory Orders Made on 19 December 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether post-19 December 1996 letters and forms breached the interlocutory orders by making prohibited representations about government affiliation, legal requirement to register, or recognition by particular persons or classes of persons.' 'Whether post-19 December 1996 invoices and follow-up correspondence sent in relation to pre-19 December application forms breached the interlocutory orders.' "Whether the respondents' intentional conduct, with knowledge of the orders, constituted contempt despite no proof of deliberate defiance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first charge was not proved because the post-19 December letters and forms did not make the prohibited representations alleged. The second charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt: by sending invoices after 19 December 1996 in respect of pre-19 December application forms containing the proscribed representations, the respondents either communicated acceptance of offers and entered contracts for the supply of the Register after the orders, or insisted upon and promoted supply of the Register on the basis of the earlier prohibited representations. The conduct breached Order 1(a) and (b), was intentional, and occurred with knowledge of the orders; both respondents were therefore guilty...

Court Disposition

Respondents found guilty of contempt; applicant awarded indemnity costs of the contempt application.

Orders

  • ['The respondents are guilty of contempt by reason of their breach of the orders made by Finn J on 19 December 1996 in proceedings AG 75 of 1996.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application, to be taxed on an indemnity basis."]