Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
Trade Practices -—- Procedure - Fines - Relevant
considerations and mitigating circumstances -
No fraudulent antent - Charges arising out of
one and the same fault - Costs.
Federal Court Rules 0.49 and 5.
Trade Practices Act 1974 s.58(b), s.79.
PETER JAMES DAWSON v Nos. W.A. G.21-26 of 1980
FISHER J.
ADELAIDE
3 February 1981
WORLD TRAVEL HEADQUARTERS PTY, LTD
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT
No. W.A. G.21, 22, 23, 24
REGISTRY 25 and 26 of 1980
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
PETER JAMES DAWSON Prosecutor
- and -
WORLD TRAVEL HEADQUARTERS PROPRIETARY LIMITED
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON FINES AND COSTS
3_ February 1981
FISHER J. :
On 28 November 1980 I delivered my reasons for my finding that on three occasions in the month of May 1979 the defendant contravened the provisions of s.58(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act"). I then adjourned the
proceedings to enable counsel to tender evidence in mitigation and to address on the question of fines and costs. The
matter was called on for further hearing on 18 December 1980.
It is necessary to deal at the outset with the fate of charges G.22 and G.24 of 1980. I indicated 1n my earlier
reasons why I doubted the propriety of convicting the defendant
on these charges. Counsel for the defendant adopted my tentative approach in my earlier reasons and did not
present argument.
The Counsel for the prosecutor submitted that because the defendant entered into contractual arrangements with two persons, Mrs. and Miss Court, it was proper for it to be convicted in respect of the payment it accepted on each occasion from each of these two persons. I accept his contention that the defendant entered into two contracts, but in my opinion there was on each day only one "acceptance of payment for services", although for services to be rendered to two persons. There was no discrepancy between the services which it intended to supply to each of the women and no difference in the services in respect of which it accepted payment from each of them, Moreover there was on each day only a single point of time at which its intention was relevant. It had but one intention and received butone payment, although in relation to two persons and two contracts. I need not further repeat what I said in my earlier reasons for my tentative opinion, which I now confirm, that these two
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