Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Commercial and General Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1349 TRADE PRACTICES – consumer protection – penalty – accepting payment where reasonable grounds for believing services will not be provided – payments for advertisements in magazine – magazine not published – lack of contrition – whether understandable – appropriateness of criminal proceedings – one man company – company with no assets – whether separate penalty for company appropriate COSTS – prosecutions under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – bulk of informations dismissed – appropriate order – pro bono representation – whether set off for penalty – quantum of fees recoverable
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 58(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2) Federal Court Rules O 80 r 9 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Vales Wine Company Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-528 at 42,776 mentioned Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v GIA Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1298 mentioned Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1175 followed Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 at 11 applied Holder v Searle (1998) 44 IPR 1 at 23 cited Brimaud v Boston Securities Entertainment Investments Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1392 cited Collector of Customs v Reg Russell and Sons Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 562 cited Beagle Management Ltd v Targridge Ltd [1997] FCA 31 cited Schokker v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (2000) 106 FCR 134 at [11] cited Chancliff Holdings Pty Ltd v Bell [1999] FCA 1783 cited Baig v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 380 cited Tennakoon v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 615 cited Da Sousa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 114 ALR 708 at 711-713 cited AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (NO 2) (T32 OF 2001) AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v ANTHONY ROBERT HASSETT (NO 2) (T33 OF 2001) HEEREY J 1 NOVEMBER 2002 MELBOURNE (HEARD IN HOBART)
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