Guthrie, T.J. v. Robertson, M. & Ors [1986] FCA 501

Guthrie, T.J. v. Robertson, M. & Ors [1986] FCA 501

The respondents engaged in a deliberate and systematic course of false and misleading advertising and bait advertising contrary to ss.53A(1)(b) and 56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Given the multiplicity and seriousness of the breaches, the penalties imposed reflected the deterrent purpose of the statute, tempered by the respondents' financial circumstances and youth.

Parties
Applicant: Terence James Guthrie; Respondent: Michael Robertson; Respondent: Tarwarri No.12 Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Statutory Breaches / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Convictions entered on all charges following pleas of guilty. Fines imposed on both respondents; orders made for costs and return of exhibits.
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Representations, Bait Advertising, Penalties for Statutory Breaches, Sentencing Principles
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Criminal Law False or Misleading Representations Bait Advertising Penalties for Statutory Breaches Sentencing Principles

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

Parties

Terence James Guthrie

Applicant

Michael Robertson

Respondent

Tarwarri No.12 Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Statutory Breaches / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the advertising constitute false or misleading representations contrary to s.53A(1)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974?
  2. 2 Did the advertising constitute bait advertising contrary to s.56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974?
  3. 3 What penalty is appropriate in light of the deterrent and consumer protection purposes of the Trade Practices Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents engaged in a deliberate and systematic course of false and misleading advertising and bait advertising contrary to ss.53A(1)(b) and 56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Given the multiplicity and seriousness of the breaches, the penalties imposed reflected the deterrent purpose of the statute, tempered by the respondents' financial circumstances and youth.

Court Disposition

Convictions entered on all charges following pleas of guilty. Fines imposed on both respondents; orders made for costs and return of exhibits.

Orders

  • Tarwarri No.12 Pty. Ltd. convicted and fined $20,000 on each of 9 charges (total $180,000) to be paid to the District Registrar at Brisbane forthwith.
  • Michael Robertson convicted and fined $1,000 on each of 21 charges (total $21,000) to be paid to the District Registrar at Brisbane forthwith.