Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Destiny Telecom International Inc & Ors [1997] FCA 984

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Destiny Telecom International Inc & Ors [1997] FCA 984

The evidence established that the first respondent promoted a scheme under which participants paid US$100, received a telephone card, and were induced principally by the prospect of commissions and other benefits arising from introducing further participants. The elements of a trading scheme under s 61 were met and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Motion Under O 10 R 7 of the Federal Court Rules Seeking Final Orders for Alleged Contravention of S 61 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Final Orders Sought Against First, Third and Fourth Respondents After Alleged Non Compliance With Discovery and Inspection Orders
Outcome
Final injunctive, declaratory, refund and costs orders were made against the first and fourth respondents; the motion against the third respondent was stood over.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'discovery and Inspection' 'trading Scheme' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S 61' 'injunctive Relief' 'declaratory Relief' 'refund Order' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'discovery and Inspection' 'trading Scheme' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S 61' 'injunctive Relief' 'declaratory Relief' 'refund Order' 'costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Motion Under O 10 R 7 of the Federal Court Rules Seeking Final Orders for Alleged Contravention of S 61 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Final Orders Sought Against First, Third and Fourth Respondents After Alleged Non Compliance With Discovery and Inspection Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' failure to comply with orders of the Court justified final orders against them" 'Whether the Commission established by admissible evidence the cause of action relied upon' 'Whether the first respondent promoted a trading scheme in contravention of s 61 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' "Whether the fourth respondent was knowingly concerned in or a party to the first respondent's contravention" 'Whether orders should be made against the third respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that the first respondent promoted a scheme under which participants paid US$100, received a telephone card, and were induced principally by the prospect of commissions and other benefits arising from introducing further participants. The elements of a trading scheme under s 61 were met and the first respondent contravened s 61. The fourth respondent was established as a subsidiary of the first respondent for purposes associated with the Australian promotion of the scheme and, in the absence of any defence putting the matter seriously in issue, was knowingly concerned in or a party to the contravention. The cause of action was sufficiently made out against the...

Court Disposition

Final injunctive, declaratory, refund and costs orders were made against the first and fourth respondents; the motion against the third respondent was stood over.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent, whether by itself its servants or agents or howsoever be restrained from promoting, advertising, holding out or participating in the scheme or any similar scheme known as "Destiny Telecom International\'s Binary Marketing Program" being the scheme described in the document marked "A" and...