Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Limited (No 4) [2003] FCA 49

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Limited (No 4) [2003] FCA 49

The warrant for committal was to be executed because the second respondent failed to comply with paragraphs 10(a) and 10(c) of the 29 November 2002 order by not signing the authority requested by the Commission and not filing and serving an affidavit verifying his assets, and also failed to comply with paragraph 10(b) by being knowingly concerned in the publication, distribution, transmission, display and broadcasting of material containing representations to the effect of those prohibited by the order of 6 August 2001. His jurisdictional objections and other explanations did not answer those breaches.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceeding / Notice of Motion Filed 17 December 2002 for Execution of Warrant for Committal Ordered on 29 November 2002
Outcome
Motion granted; warrant for committal ordered to be executed forthwith and costs ordered against the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'warrant for Committal' 'domain Name Transfer' 'misleading Representations' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 60']
['contempt of Court' 'consumer Protection'] ['failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'warrant for Committal' 'domain Name Transfer' 'misleading Representations' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 60']

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 Proceeding / Notice of Motion Filed 17 December 2002 for Execution of Warrant for Committal Ordered on 29 November 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent failed to take all steps, perform all acts and sign all documents required by the Commission to effect transfer of the domain name.' 'Whether the second respondent failed to file and serve an affidavit verifying assets in his possession, power, custody or control.' 'Whether the second respondent breached the order requiring him to refrain for two years from publishing, distributing, transmitting, displaying or broadcasting material containing prohibited representations, or being knowingly involved in such conduct.' "Whether the warrant for the second respondent's committal should be executed forthwith."]

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant for committal was to be executed because the second respondent failed to comply with paragraphs 10(a) and 10(c) of the 29 November 2002 order by not signing the authority requested by the Commission and not filing and serving an affidavit verifying his assets, and also failed to comply with paragraph 10(b) by being knowingly concerned in the publication, distribution, transmission, display and broadcasting of material containing representations to the effect of those prohibited by the order of 6 August 2001. His jurisdictional objections and other explanations did not answer those breaches.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; warrant for committal ordered to be executed forthwith and costs ordered against the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['The warrant for the committal of the second respondent, Neal Arthur Lyster, to prison for a period of one month issued pursuant to the order of the Court dated 29 November 2002 be executed forthwith.' 'The second respondent pay the costs of the applicant of and incidental to its motion dated and filed 17 December...