Keith Harris & Co Ltd & Ors v. Bryant, Betty Veronica & Anor [1980] FCA 99

A

CATCHWORDS

Contempt of Court - trap orders - no notice to trapped respondent until well after trap sprung - nevertheless on the evidence in the instant case respondents found

in breach of undertaking.

KEITH HARRIS & CO. LIMITED & ors. v. BETTY VERONICA BRYANT & anor,

G. 76 of 1979

SHEPPARD, J. Sydney 25 June, 1980

IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 76 of 1979 GENERAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1

Between KEITH HARRIS & CO. LIMITED UNITED BEVERAGES PLY. LIMITED, JUSFRUTE LIMITED ——C—~—C LIMITED ° Applicants And

BETTY VERONICA BRYANT, BRYANTS HOTELS PTY. LIMITED

Respondents

CORAM: SHEPPARD J. 25 JUNE, 1980

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The notice of motion in this matter seeks orders that the respondents be dealt with for contempt of court. On 10 December last, the applicants commenced proceedings against the respondents in which they alleged breaches by the respondents of the provisions of ss.52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The applicants are associated companies. They are and have been for some years, engaged in the distribution and marketing of an orange juice known as Orchy. The

second respondent conducts the business of the Strata Motor

1.

Inn at Cremorne. The inn is a licensed hotel and has a number of bars where liquor is sold. The first respondent is a director of the second respondent. At all material times, the second respondent sold an orange juice known as Berri from each of its bars. It did not sell the applicants' product, Orchy orange juice.

The complaint which the applicants made in their application filed in December 1979 was that the respondents were syoplying to customers who asked for Orchy orange juice, orange juice. of another brand, without the customer being informed that the inn did not stock Orchy, so that their order could not be fulfilled.