Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1440

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1440

The respondents breached undertakings to the court by making false representations and seeking payment for unsolicited advertising; these breaches, substantiated by credible evidence and lack of effective preventative action, constitute contempt of court and warrant interlocutory injunctions restraining future misconduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Punishment for Contempt / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders
Outcome
First and second respondents found guilty of contempt of court for breach of undertakings. Interlocutory injunctions granted restraining specified conduct. Certain requested orders refused.
Legal Topics
['misrepresentation' 'unsolicited Advertising' 'false Representation' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Undertaking']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'contempt of Court'] ['misrepresentation' 'unsolicited Advertising' 'false Representation' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Undertaking']

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 Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Punishment for Contempt / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents breached undertakings given to the court regarding assertions of payment and misrepresentations for unsolicited advertising services' 'Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted to restrain specific conduct' 'Whether the conduct amounted to contempt of court']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents breached undertakings to the court by making false representations and seeking payment for unsolicited advertising; these breaches, substantiated by credible evidence and lack of effective preventative action, constitute contempt of court and warrant interlocutory injunctions restraining future misconduct.

Court Disposition

First and second respondents found guilty of contempt of court for breach of undertakings. Interlocutory injunctions granted restraining specified conduct. Certain requested orders refused.

Orders

  • ['First respondent restrained until trial or further order from engaging in misrepresentative and misleading conduct regarding advertising and directory entries, as specified.' 'Second respondent restrained until trial or further order from engaging in or being knowingly concerned in such conduct, as specified.'...