Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hugo Boss Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 799

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hugo Boss Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 799

The first respondent admitted to contraventions of s. 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by enforcing minimum resale prices for stock service suits. The contraventions were deliberate and systematic, carried out under the knowledge and approval of the second respondent. The Court accepts the jointly agreed penalties and injunctions as appropriate relief, given the seriousness and duration of the breaches.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Hugo Boss Australia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Aaron Kanat; Third Respondent: Simon Kanat; Fourth Respondent: Michael Penman; Fifth Respondent: Jonathon Kanat
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Pecuniary Penalties and Injunctive Relief / Final Judgment After Admissions and Joint Submissions
Outcome
Pecuniary penalties and injunctive relief granted as agreed between the parties
Legal Topics
Resale Price Maintenance, Pecuniary Penalties, Injunctive Relief, Trade Practices Compliance
Competition Law Resale Price Maintenance Pecuniary Penalties Injunctive Relief Trade Practices Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Hugo Boss Australia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Aaron Kanat

Second Respondent

Simon Kanat

Third Respondent

Michael Penman

Fourth Respondent

Jonathon Kanat

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Pecuniary Penalties and Injunctive Relief / Final Judgment After Admissions and Joint Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of s. 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether penalties and injunctive relief should be imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent admitted to contraventions of s. 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by enforcing minimum resale prices for stock service suits. The contraventions were deliberate and systematic, carried out under the knowledge and approval of the second respondent. The Court accepts the jointly agreed penalties and injunctions as appropriate relief, given the seriousness and duration of the breaches.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalties and injunctive relief granted as agreed between the parties

Orders

  • Orders against the first respondent as per paragraphs A 2 to 8 of the short minutes of order dated 25 July 1996
  • Orders against the second respondent as per paragraphs B 9 to 14 of the short minutes of order dated 25 July 1996