Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2019] FCAFC 164 Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 12
File number: NSD 463 of 2019
Judges: ALLSOP CJ, JAGOT AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 20 September 2019
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – whether the appellant contravened cl 15(1)(b) of the Franchising Code (Schedule 1 to the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulation 2014) – ambiguity in cl 15(1)(b) – whether the disclosure documents provided sufficient detail regarding expenditure – no error found in appellant's contravention of cl 15(1)(b) PENALTY – appeal against penalty – number of contraventions – course of conduct and grouping of contraventions– totality – seriousness of contraventions – penalty reduced
Legislation: Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth) cll 6(1), 8, 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 8(6), 13, 15, 15(1), 15(1)(a), 15(1)(b), 15(1)(b)(ii), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(d), 16(1), 16(1)(b), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 76(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4AA Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140(2)
Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 113; 254 FCR 68 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Nine Brisbane Sites Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 59 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 12 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73; 357 ALR 55 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 761; 282 ALR 246 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The Non-Indemnification Personal Payment Case) [2018] FCAFC 97 Deming No 456 Pty Ltd v Brisbane Unit Development Corporation Pty Ltd (1983) 155
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate