PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2020] FCA 685

PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2020] FCA 685

The Commission’s application for a stay fails because it has not established, on the evidence, that Garuda's non-compliance with the pecuniary penalty order was deliberate and wilful such as to constitute contempt. The onus to prove contempt rests with the applicant (the Commission), and factual and legal...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd; Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Stay of Appeal Pending Compliance With Court Order
Outcome
Respondent's application for a stay dismissed with costs. Leave granted to appellant to amend notice of appeal.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Contempt of Court, Appellate Procedure, Pecuniary Penalties, Court's Discretion, Foreign State Entities
Practice and Procedure Competition Law Corporations Stay of Proceedings Contempt of Court Appellate Procedure Pecuniary Penalties Court's Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd

Appellant

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Stay of Appeal Pending Compliance With Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be stayed on the basis that the appellant has failed to comply with an order to pay pecuniary penalties
  2. 2 Whether contempt has been established sufficient to justify a stay
  3. 3 What is the requisite standard for establishing contempt for a stay order

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission’s application for a stay fails because it has not established, on the evidence, that Garuda's non-compliance with the pecuniary penalty order was deliberate and wilful such as to constitute contempt. The onus to prove contempt rests with the applicant (the Commission), and factual and legal uncertainties regarding Garuda’s capacity to pay remain unresolved. Without proof of wilful disobedience, no principled basis exists for exercising the Court’s discretion to stay the appeal.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for a stay dismissed with costs. Leave granted to appellant to amend notice of appeal.

Orders

  • The respondent's amended interlocutory application dated 28 October 2019 be dismissed.
  • The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the interlocutory application.