Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 522

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Abel Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd

[2000] FCA 522

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v ABEL RENT-A-CAR PTY LIMITED ACN 060 876 468 AND STEVEN MARK CONN Q 34 OF 1999 DRUMMOND J 19 APRIL 2000 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 34 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: ABEL RENT-A-CAR PTY LIMITED ACN 060 876 468

FIRST RESPONDENT

STEVEN MARK CONN

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 APRIL 2000

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The second respondent pay the sum of $10,000 by way of penalty for the contempt, the subject of Declaration 2(B) of the orders made on 12 April 2000.

2. The sum of $10,000 be paid within one month of this date.

3. The second respondent pay the costs of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of and incidental to the contempt proceedings, such costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis, ie, to the intent that Mr Conn must pay all the costs of the Commission of and incidental to the contempt proceedings, save such costs, if any, as may have been unreasonably incurred by the Commission.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 34 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: ABEL RENT-A-CAR PTY LIMITED ACN 060 876 468

FIRST RESPONDENT

STEVEN MARK CONN

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE: 19 APRIL 2000

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 12 April 2000 I made declarations that Abel Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd, by 11 June 1999, had not altered its signage in the respects referred to in Declaration 1(A) and was thus in contempt of court. I also made a declaration that by 11 June 1999 it had not altered its billboard signage at its Cairns depot in the way referred to in that declaration and was also in contempt of court. I further found that the second respondent, Mr Conn, who was, in effect, the controller of Abel Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd, at the date of these contempts, was himself in contempt in so far as he took no adequate steps to ensure that the first respondent did not breach the relevant court orders which brought it into contempt in the two respects that I have mentioned. 2 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does not ask for any penalty against Abel Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd because not only has it long since been sold, but it is now in liquidation. 3 In the reasons I published on 12 April 2000, I found that, so far as concerns the first contempt of the company, in which Mr Conn is also involved, the company had changed its terms of business so as to make the order of March 1999 in respect of which I found the company to be in contempt by Declaration 1(A), for practical purposes, irrelevant. I was not prepared to find that that change of business in fact occurred only after 18 May 1999, the date fixed for compliance with the relevant court order. I said, in relation to this first contempt by the company in which Mr Conn was involved, this: