Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. [2011] FCAFC 17

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. [2011] FCAFC 17 Citation: Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. [2011] FCAFC 17

Appeal from: Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 9) [2010] FCA 1007

Parties: JOSEF VAYSMAN v DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION INC.

File number: VID 858 of 2010

Judges: GRAY, BESANKO AND BROMBERG JJ

Date of judgment: 16 February 2011

Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – sentence – defiance of orders of Court – whether term of imprisonment manifestly excessive – comparison with other sentences for contempt imposed by Court – whether imprisonment appropriate – power to fine – effect of bankruptcy – whether sentence should have been in parity with sentence of another contemnor – whether primary judge failed to take account of appellant's advanced age and ill health – whether primary judge failed to give credit for previous good character – whether double punishment for the same offence – separate sentences for manufacturing and selling prohibited products at different locations on different dates – whether primary judge misconstrued earlier statement of appellant to Court through counsel COSTS – appeal – sentence for contempt of court – whether respondent should be ordered to pay costs of successful appellant

Legislation: Banking Act 1959 (Cth) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 471A(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 17A Federal Court Rules O 52 r 15(1)(a)(i), O 52 r 15(2) Trades Mark Act 1995 Part 14

Cases cited: Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 201 discussed Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Matthews [1999] FCA 803 followed Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 applied Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10) [2007] FCA 1814 discussed Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Reid [2002] FCA 84 cited Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Reid (No 2) [2006] FCA 700 cited Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 78 ALR 116; 34 A Crim R 154 cited Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 cited Deckers Outdoor Corporation Pty Ltd v Farley (No 6) [2010] FCA 391 discussed Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 7) [2010] FCA 560 discussed Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 8) [2010] FCA 657 discussed Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 9) [2010] FCA 1007 discussed Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 cited Duncan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 92 cited Heatons Transport (St Helens) v Transport and General Workers' Union [1973] AC 15 discussed Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 applied Hughes v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 319 discussed House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 cited James (1985) 14 A Crim R 364 discussed Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 136 discussed Jones v Toben (No 2) [2009] FCA 477 discussed Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 83 followed Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 cited Maff Investments Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fuller (1991) 3 WAR 546 cited Microsoft Corporation v Marks (No 1) (1996) 69 FCR 117 discussed O'Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 150 CLR 310 cited Pattison (Trustee), in the matter of Bell (Bankrupt) v Bell [2007] FCA 137 discussed R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 cited R v Van Boxtel (2005) 11 VR 258 cited Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 applied Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] FCAFC 90 discussed Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 cited Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 applied Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1984)