Thompson, John Cranston v. J.T. Fossey Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 62

Thompson, John Cranston v. J.T. Fossey Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 62

The court found that adverse publicity alone does not mitigate penalty, that there was little evidence of serious preventive action by the defendant prior to the transactions, and imposed fines for each offence accordingly.

Parties
Informant: John Cranston Thompson; Defendant: J.T. Fossey Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing/orders
Outcome
Conviction and fine
Legal Topics
False Representations, Penalty Determination
Consumer Law False Representations Penalty Determination

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Cranston Thompson

Informant

J.T. Fossey Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing/orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate penalty for the offences proved against the defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that adverse publicity alone does not mitigate penalty, that there was little evidence of serious preventive action by the defendant prior to the transactions, and imposed fines for each offence accordingly.

Court Disposition

Conviction and fine

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted on each charge.
  • A fine of $1,500 is imposed for each charge (Nos. 93 & 94 of 1977, and 5 & 6 of 1978), totaling $6,000.