Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Matta [1999] FCA 1491

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Matta [1999] FCA 1491

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, before 20 August 1997, the respondent knew that labelling of some sort was required for the CR 39 sunglasses, knew Farid proposed to market them without that labelling, knew the lenses were coloured, and had no credible explanation for any labelling requirement other than the relevant AS 1067.1-1990 requirements. The respondent's denials were rejected, and his prior statements to Wilson and failure to contradict Wilson's letter supported the inference of knowledge. His knowledge was sufficient to establish that he was knowingly concerned in Shercind's contraventions based on labelling non-compliance, but there was no evidence that he...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing on Liability; Submissions on Penalty and Costs to Be Heard
Outcome
Respondent found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in QG 125/98, excluding the particular concerning the diameter of the field of view, and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in QG 127/98; penalty and costs reserved for submissions.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Concerned in a Contravention' 'consumer Product Safety Standards' 'sunglasses and Fashion Spectacles' 'proof of Actual Knowledge by Inference']
['criminal Law' 'trade Practices and Consumer Protection'] ['knowingly Concerned in a Contravention' 'consumer Product Safety Standards' 'sunglasses and Fashion Spectacles' 'proof of Actual Knowledge by Inference']

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

Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing on Liability; Submissions on Penalty and Costs to Be Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent was directly knowingly concerned in Shercind Pty Ltd's contraventions of par 65C(1)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)." 'Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent knew of the relevant Australian Standards and knew that each pair of sunglasses did not comply with those standards at the time of supply.' 'Whether the respondent knew of the labelling non-compliance for exhibits 4 and 6 before 20 August 1997.' 'Whether the respondent knew of the field-of-view deficiency in exhibit 4 at any relevant time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, before 20 August 1997, the respondent knew that labelling of some sort was required for the CR 39 sunglasses, knew Farid proposed to market them without that labelling, knew the lenses were coloured, and had no credible explanation for any labelling requirement other than the relevant AS 1067.1-1990 requirements. The respondent's denials were rejected, and his prior statements to Wilson and failure to contradict Wilson's letter supported the inference of knowledge. His knowledge was sufficient to establish that he was knowingly concerned in Shercind's contraventions based on labelling non-compliance, but there was no evidence that he...

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in QG 125/98, excluding the particular concerning the diameter of the field of view, and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in QG 127/98; penalty and costs reserved for submissions.

Orders

  • []