Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jones (No 2) [2010] FCA 371

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jones (No 2) [2010] FCA 371

Although the respondent's personal and business burdens alone would not justify an extension, the discretion under O 3 r 3 should be exercised because the proposed challenge to the power to make order 3 was not frivolous, the respondent genuinely wished to pursue an extension of time for leave to appeal, he had faced real personal and business difficulties causing delay, and the undertakings offered protection relevant to public health concerns. The time for compliance with order 3 was therefore extended, with costs consequences under O 62 r 23 and discretionary costs orders on the contempt motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Interlocutory Order After Expiry of Time for Compliance / Hearing of Respondent's Oral Application on the Day Appointed for the Applicant's Contempt Application
Outcome
Extension of time granted; applicant given leave to discontinue the contempt motion and statement of charge; costs ordered in part and reserved in part.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'undertakings' 'costs' 'leave to Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['extension of Time' 'compliance With Court Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'undertakings' 'costs' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Interlocutory Order After Expiry of Time for Compliance / Hearing of Respondent's Oral Application on the Day Appointed for the Applicant's Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power under Federal Court Rules O 3 r 3 to extend time for compliance with order 3 of the interlocutory orders made on 5 March 2010 after the time for compliance had expired.' 'Whether the discretion to extend time should be exercised where the respondent wished to challenge the power to make the order and had given undertakings directed to notifying clients.' "What costs orders should be made in relation to the extension application and the applicant's contempt motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's personal and business burdens alone would not justify an extension, the discretion under O 3 r 3 should be exercised because the proposed challenge to the power to make order 3 was not frivolous, the respondent genuinely wished to pursue an extension of time for leave to appeal, he had faced real personal and business difficulties causing delay, and the undertakings offered protection relevant to public health concerns. The time for compliance with order 3 was therefore extended, with costs consequences under O 62 r 23 and discretionary costs orders on the contempt motion.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; applicant given leave to discontinue the contempt motion and statement of charge; costs ordered in part and reserved in part.

Orders

  • ["The time for compliance with order 3 of the interlocutory orders made on 5 March 2010 be extended until seven days after the hearing and determination of the respondent's application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from those orders, or such later date as may be fixed by the Court."...