Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mayo International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1008

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mayo International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1008

The seriousness of the contraventions and the need for deterrence require the imposition of substantial, but not overwhelming, pecuniary penalties against the company and relevant individuals, having regard to their size, financial capacity, and the nature of their participation. Injunctive relief that merely...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Penalty Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Judgment on Penalty
Outcome
Pecuniary penalties imposed on the first, second, and fourth respondents; costs ordered against first and second respondents; no injunctive orders granted.
Legal Topics
['resale Price Maintenance' 'penalties' 'deterrence' 'personal Liability of Corporate Officers']
['competition Law'] ['resale Price Maintenance' 'penalties' 'deterrence' 'personal Liability of Corporate Officers']

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

Penalty Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Judgment on Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate penalty for contraventions of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by a small company and its officers' 'Relevance and appropriateness of injunction orders' 'Assessment of penalty having regard to deterrence and company capacity']

Ratio Decidendi

The seriousness of the contraventions and the need for deterrence require the imposition of substantial, but not overwhelming, pecuniary penalties against the company and relevant individuals, having regard to their size, financial capacity, and the nature of their participation. Injunctive relief that merely recapitulates the statutory prohibition is not warranted without evidence of utility.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalties imposed on the first, second, and fourth respondents; costs ordered against first and second respondents; no injunctive orders granted.

Orders

  • ['Mayo International Pty Ltd to pay $10,000 for each of contraventions 1, 2, and 20, and $1,500 for each of contraventions 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.' 'Alan Jon Le Court to pay $3,000 for each of contraventions 1, 2, and 20, and $1,000 for each of contraventions 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,...