Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 522

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 522

Mr Conn was responsible for ensuring compliance with the court order concerning the Cairns signage and made no serious attempt to secure compliance until after an officer drew attention to the continuing breach. His conduct was more serious than his involvement in the earlier breach, and the evidence showed a significant lack of remorse. Although imprisonment was considered, the limited nature of the contempt and the character of the conduct meant imprisonment was not warranted; a fine of $10,000 and indemnity costs were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Following Declarations of Contempt
Outcome
The second respondent was ordered to pay a $10,000 penalty for contempt and the applicant's costs of and incidental to the contempt proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['penalty for Contempt' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'corporate Controller Liability']
['contempt of Court' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['penalty for Contempt' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'corporate Controller Liability']

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 Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Following Declarations of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty, if any, should be imposed on the second respondent for contempt the subject of Declaration 2(B) of the orders made on 12 April 2000.' "Whether the second respondent's conduct warranted imprisonment or a fine." "Whether the second respondent should pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the contempt proceedings on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Conn was responsible for ensuring compliance with the court order concerning the Cairns signage and made no serious attempt to secure compliance until after an officer drew attention to the continuing breach. His conduct was more serious than his involvement in the earlier breach, and the evidence showed a significant lack of remorse. Although imprisonment was considered, the limited nature of the contempt and the character of the conduct meant imprisonment was not warranted; a fine of $10,000 and indemnity costs were appropriate.

Court Disposition

The second respondent was ordered to pay a $10,000 penalty for contempt and the applicant's costs of and incidental to the contempt proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent pay the sum of $10,000 by way of penalty for the contempt, the subject of Declaration 2(B) of the orders made on 12 April 2000.' 'The sum of $10,000 be paid within one month of this date.' 'The second respondent pay the costs of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of and...