Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2006] FCA 695

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2006] FCA 695

The second respondent, Arthur Graham Spencer, was in contempt of court by reason of a deliberate and wilful breach of paragraph 13 of the consent orders—failing to provide complete, accessible copies of the orders (including the agreed statement of facts) to persons as required—because he took steps to render access difficult, withheld passwords, and supplied incomplete documents, thus frustrating the purpose of the orders. However, no contempt was established in regard to paragraph 12 of the orders (the disclosure document), as the requirement was unclear and potentially incapable of compliance given the respondent's circumstances.

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 100 368 892)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Contempt and Penalty
Outcome
Second respondent found guilty of contempt in respect of paragraph 13 of the orders; fined $8,000; required to serve full copy of orders; contempt charge in respect of paragraph 12 not established; that order vacated; indemnity costs ordered against second respondent.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction to Punish Contempt, Compliance With Court Orders, Disclosure Documents Under Franchising Code, Clarity and Enforceability of Court Orders, Penalties for Contempt, Indemnity Costs
Contempt of Court Practice and Procedure Competition Law Franchising Jurisdiction to Punish Contempt Compliance With Court Orders Disclosure Documents Under Franchising Code Clarity and Enforceability of Court Orders +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 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 100 368 892)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Contempt and Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with consent orders by the second respondent constituted contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether court orders were sufficiently clear, unambiguous, and capable of compliance for contempt to arise
  3. 3 What penalty is appropriate for any contempt found

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent, Arthur Graham Spencer, was in contempt of court by reason of a deliberate and wilful breach of paragraph 13 of the consent orders—failing to provide complete, accessible copies of the orders (including the agreed statement of facts) to persons as required—because he took steps to render access difficult, withheld passwords, and supplied incomplete documents, thus frustrating the purpose of the orders. However, no contempt was established in regard to paragraph 12 of the orders (the disclosure document), as the requirement was unclear and potentially incapable of compliance given the respondent's circumstances.

Court Disposition

Second respondent found guilty of contempt in respect of paragraph 13 of the orders; fined $8,000; required to serve full copy of orders; contempt charge in respect of paragraph 12 not established; that order vacated; indemnity costs ordered against second respondent.

Orders

  • Second respondent declared guilty of contempt for breach of paragraph 13 of the 8 February 2006 orders.
  • Second respondent fined $8,000 for contempt.