Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chopra (No 2) [2017] FCA 729

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chopra (No 2) [2017] FCA 729

The respondent's repeated breaches of the Court's injunctions were serious criminal contempts involving defiance, deliberate and contumacious determination to defy the Court, and a direct intention to disobey its orders. Because he understood the seriousness of the 11 May 2015 orders, was repeatedly warned that breach could result in imprisonment, nevertheless continued similar conduct through successive websites, and had not paid prior penalties, a fine or wholly suspended sentence would not be effective to vindicate the Court's authority; a term of imprisonment with one month to be actually served and the balance suspended on conditions was required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Sentencing Proceeding / Penalty Phase After Respondent Pleaded Guilty to Two Charges of Contempt
Outcome
Respondent sentenced for two contempts to concurrent terms of 3 months imprisonment, with one month to be served and the remaining two months suspended on conditions for five years; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['sentencing for Contempt' 'breach of Injunctions' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations Concerning Consumer Guarantees' 'failure to Supply Goods Within the Required Time' 'suspended Imprisonment' 'indemnity Costs']
['contempt of Court' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['sentencing for Contempt' 'breach of Injunctions' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations Concerning Consumer Guarantees' 'failure to Supply Goods Within the Required Time' 'suspended Imprisonment' 'indemnity Costs']

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 of Court Sentencing Proceeding / Penalty Phase After Respondent Pleaded Guilty to Two Charges of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contempts were serious enough to require a sentence of imprisonment.' 'Whether any sentence of imprisonment should be wholly or partially suspended.' 'What conditions should attach to any suspended part of the sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's repeated breaches of the Court's injunctions were serious criminal contempts involving defiance, deliberate and contumacious determination to defy the Court, and a direct intention to disobey its orders. Because he understood the seriousness of the 11 May 2015 orders, was repeatedly warned that breach could result in imprisonment, nevertheless continued similar conduct through successive websites, and had not paid prior penalties, a fine or wholly suspended sentence would not be effective to vindicate the Court's authority; a term of imprisonment with one month to be actually served and the balance suspended on conditions was required.

Court Disposition

Respondent sentenced for two contempts to concurrent terms of 3 months imprisonment, with one month to be served and the remaining two months suspended on conditions for five years; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['On the two charges of contempt in the further amended statement of charge dated 19 April 2017, to which the respondent pleaded guilty on 19 April 2017, the following sentences be imposed on the respondent: on charge 1, 3 months; on charge 2, 3 months.' 'The sentences be served concurrently.' 'The respondent serve...