Ducret, Alan Raymond v Colourshot Pty Ltd & Anor [1981] FCA 9

IN SHE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WE tT em em ee wet tee ea eee ee

VG Nos. 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103 and 104

of 1980

eee

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor And: COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD. Defendant

(VG No. 79 of 1980) ,

Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

And: COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD.

Defendant

(VG No. 81 of 1980)

Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor And: COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD. Defendant

(VG No. 82 of 1980)

A perewerentn <n ee

Between:

And:'

Between:

And

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD. Defendant

(VG No. 85 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD.

Between:

And:

Between:

And

Defendant

(VG No. 87 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD. Defendant

(VG No. 89 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

COLOURSHOT PTY. LTL.

Defendant

(VG No. 91 of 1980)

Between:

And:

Between:

And:

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

BARRY STACEY Defendant

(VG No. 92 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Proescutor

BARRY STACEY

Between:

And:

Between:

And:

Between:

And:

Defendant

(VG No. 94 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor

BARRY STACEY Defendant

(VG No. 96 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

BARRY STACEY Defendant

(VG No. 97 of 1980)

ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor BARRY STACEY Defendant

(VG No. 99 of 1980)

Coram: Smithers J.

11 February 1981

eee re rN eS emit wer pee De ee ee

Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor And: BARRY STACEY Defendant (VG No. 100 of 1980) Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor And: BARRY STACEY Defendant (VG No. 101 of 1980) Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor And: BARRY STACEY Defendant (VG No. 103 of 1980) Between: ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET Prosecutor And: BARRY STACEY

Defendant

(VG No. 104 of 1980)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings arise out of a course of systematic, heartless and fraudulent exploitation by "the defendants of persons of modest means in which the victims paid thousands of dollars to the defendant company for worthless contracts, were caused to incur expenses in performing unrewarding and onerous