Gould v Day [2002] FCA 423

Gould v Day [2002] FCA 423

The applicant failed to establish on the evidence any contravention of ss 45D, 45DB, or 51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by the respondents. There was no evidence that the conduct complained of hindered or prevented the supply of services to, or caused substantial loss to, any corporation as required by s 45D; no evidence of international movement of goods as required by s 45DB; and no scope for s 51AC as the respondents are individuals, not corporations. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Ss 45 D, 45 DB, 51 Ac' 'secondary Boycotts' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'bankruptcy Creditors' 'contempt of Court']
['competition Law' 'bankruptcy Law'] ['trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Ss 45 D, 45 Db, 51 Ac' 'secondary Boycotts' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'bankruptcy Creditors' 'contempt of Court']

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 / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents contravened ss 45D, 45DB, or 51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in dealings with the applicant and related entities' 'Whether relief in the form of restraint or injunction is available to the applicant under these sections' 'Whether there is a basis for contempt proceedings arising from correspondences sent on 5 and 15 March 2002']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish on the evidence any contravention of ss 45D, 45DB, or 51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by the respondents. There was no evidence that the conduct complained of hindered or prevented the supply of services to, or caused substantial loss to, any corporation as required by s 45D; no evidence of international movement of goods as required by s 45DB; and no scope for s 51AC as the respondents are individuals, not corporations. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The motion filed on 20 March 2002 is dismissed, subject to Order 35 Rule 6(1) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'The application is dismissed.']