Australian Consumer & Competition Commission v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCA 396

Australian Consumer & Competition Commission v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCA 396

The appropriate order is that the second respondent pay the applicant's costs, as the ACCC succeeded in substantial relief; the case is one where the respondent effectively capitulated after strongly contesting the claims, and the ACCC's conduct was reasonable and justified given the serious contraventions.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 086 261 798); Second Respondent: Arthur Graham Spencer; Third Respondent: CPG Recruitment Pty Ltd (ACN 100 386 892)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Costs / Application for Costs Following Consent Orders
Outcome
Second respondent to pay applicant's costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Consent Orders, Franchising Code of Conduct, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Franchising Law Costs Consent Orders Franchising Code of Conduct Misleading or Deceptive 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 086 261 798)

First Respondent

Arthur Graham Spencer

Second Respondent

CPG Recruitment Pty Ltd (ACN 100 386 892)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure – Costs / Application for Costs Following Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent should be liable for the applicant's costs after proceeding finalised by consent orders
  2. 2 Extent to which the applicant was successful in securing relief sought
  3. 3 Whether the applicant acted reasonably before and during litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate order is that the second respondent pay the applicant's costs, as the ACCC succeeded in substantial relief; the case is one where the respondent effectively capitulated after strongly contesting the claims, and the ACCC's conduct was reasonable and justified given the serious contraventions.

Court Disposition

Second respondent to pay applicant's costs

Orders

  • The second respondent pay the applicant's costs of this proceeding, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.