Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) }) W.A. No.c5S of 1990 WESTERN AUSTRALIA DIST Ric? REGISIPRY ) W.A. No.G9 of 1980 ) W.A. No.Gl4 of 1980 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: JONN VEPRRON O'DEA
Prosecutor
AND: CASNOP PLY LIMITED
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT,
23 December 1980 KEELY J.
Three informations were laid by John Vernon C' dea (the prosecutor) on 12 February 1980 against Casnot Pty Linited (che defendant). Each information chareed a contravention of s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 {the Act) in that the defendant invited "by advertisement in 'The West Australian' newspaper and otherwise" certain persons "to apply to participate in a business activity requiring the investment of moneys ... and the performance .. of work associated with the investment and did with respect to the profitability of the business activity make a statement that was misleading in 4a material particular". The contraventions were alleged to hrve been committed at Perth between 1? and 16 February 1979 in matter W.A. No. GS of 1980, between 2 and 7 March 1975 in
matter W.A. No. G9 of 1980 and becveen 17 2nd 23 March 1979 in
matter W.A. No. G14 of 1920.
The informations were called on before the Court on several dates and on 27 July 1980 tir Lee of counsel, instructed by Messrs Stables & Co., announced that the defendant pleaded guilty to each of the three charges - pleas confirmed at the commencement of the hearing as to penalties. The matters were adjourned to enable both the prosecutor and the defendant to prepare and file such affidavit evidence as each considered necessary to assist the Court to determine the appropriate fine (0.49 r.5(1) of Federal Court Rules). On 25 September 1980 the Matters were fixed for hearing "in the week commencing Tuesday,
14 October 1980".
On 14 October 1980 Mr S. G. Scott, a member of Messrs Stables & Co., the firm of solicitors which had represented the defendant in respect of these matters on a number of earlier occasions in the Court, appeared on behalf of the defendant and gave notice that it was his client's wish that it should not be further represented by legal practitioners after that morning. On the following day Mr D. R. Heycock, one of the two directors of the defendant, sought and was granted leave to represent the defendant. Mr Heycock in evidence said that he was the "overall manager" of the business. By consent the three
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