Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1441

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1441

Because Mr Hudson's contempts were serious and deliberate, involving both personal instructions contrary to undertakings and involvement in the company's breach, a two month sentence of imprisonment was warranted; the Court's contempt powers include the power to suspend that imprisonment on conditions, so the warrant was to lie in the Registry provided he avoided contraventions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and knowing involvement in such contraventions for two years. The first respondent's serious contempt warranted a $10,000 fine, and indemnity costs were ordered because the contempts and breached undertakings made the proceedings necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings and Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Orders and Reasons on Punishment for Contempt
Outcome
The second respondent was sentenced to two months imprisonment for contempt, with the warrant not to be executed if he complied with conditions for two years; the first respondent was fined $10,000; costs were awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['breach of Undertakings to the Court' 'suspended Committal Order' 'part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'misleading Advertising Conduct']
['contempt of Court' 'trade Practices and Consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Undertakings to the Court' 'suspended Committal Order' 'part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'misleading Advertising Conduct']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings and Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Orders and Reasons on Punishment for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What punishment should be imposed on the second respondent for serious and deliberate contempts of court constituted by breach of undertakings and involvement in the first respondent's contempt." 'Whether the Court has power to suspend a sentence of imprisonment for contempt on conditions.' 'What penalty and costs orders should be made against the first respondent for serious contempts of court.' 'Whether the applicant should receive costs of interlocutory injunctive relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Hudson's contempts were serious and deliberate, involving both personal instructions contrary to undertakings and involvement in the company's breach, a two month sentence of imprisonment was warranted; the Court's contempt powers include the power to suspend that imprisonment on conditions, so the warrant was to lie in the Registry provided he avoided contraventions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and knowing involvement in such contraventions for two years. The first respondent's serious contempt warranted a $10,000 fine, and indemnity costs were ordered because the contempts and breached undertakings made the proceedings necessary.

Court Disposition

The second respondent was sentenced to two months imprisonment for contempt, with the warrant not to be executed if he complied with conditions for two years; the first respondent was fined $10,000; costs were awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent, Grant Warren Hudson, be imprisoned for a period of two months in respect of the contempts of court.' "A warrant for the second respondent's committal to prison for a period of two months issue." 'The warrant lie in the Registry to the intent that it not be executed, provided that the second...