Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd (formerly Phoneflasher.com Pty Ltd) ACN 061 234 642 [2007] FCA 429

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd (formerly Phoneflasher.com Pty Ltd) ACN 061 234 642 [2007] FCA 429

Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd breached orders 3, 4, and 6 of the consent orders, and is found guilty of contempt; strict compliance was not forthcoming and conduct was indifferent and wilful. Alan Bradley Jorgensen, though a shadow director and domain registrant, did not control the website content; there is reasonable doubt on aiding or abetting non-compliance, so contempt charge against him not proven.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
First Respondent guilty of contempt; Second Respondent not guilty.
Legal Topics
['contempt of Court' 'director Liability' 'shadow Director' 'compliance With Consent Orders' 'penalty for Civil Contempt']
['competition Law' 'company Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['contempt of Court' 'director Liability' 'shadow Director' 'compliance With Consent Orders' 'penalty for Civil Contempt']

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

Civil Contempt Proceedings / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd breached consent orders and is guilty of contempt' 'Whether Alan Bradley Jorgensen aided, abetted, or subverted compliance with order 6 and is guilty of contempt' "Whether director liability attaches for company's breach of court orders"]

Ratio Decidendi

Dynacast (Int) Pty Ltd breached orders 3, 4, and 6 of the consent orders, and is found guilty of contempt; strict compliance was not forthcoming and conduct was indifferent and wilful. Alan Bradley Jorgensen, though a shadow director and domain registrant, did not control the website content; there is reasonable doubt on aiding or abetting non-compliance, so contempt charge against him not proven.

Court Disposition

First Respondent guilty of contempt; Second Respondent not guilty.

Orders

  • ['First respondent fined $5,000 for breaches of orders 3 and 4.' 'First respondent fined $2,000 for breach of order 6.' "First respondent to pay applicant's costs on indemnity basis." 'Application otherwise dismissed.']