FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Info4pc.com Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 641 Federal Court Rules O 35 r 5 AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD and JAMES RAE S17 of 2001 RD NICHOLSON J 25 JUNE 2003 PERTH IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S17 OF 2001 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION APPLICANT AND: INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT JAMES HAMILTON RAE SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J DATE OF ORDER: 25 JUNE 2003 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT: 1. With respect to the fines imposed on the first respondent and referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the orders of 31 July 2002, such fines be paid within 28 days from the date of this order. 2. With respect to the fine imposed upon the second respondent by paragraph 5 of the orders of 31 July 2002, such fine be paid within the following times: (a) as to the sum of $2000.00, no later than 10 days of the date of these orders; (b) as to the balance, by five instalments of $333.33 each and a final instalment of $333.35 payable on the following dates: 31 July 2003 31 October 2003 29 August 2003 28 November 2003 30 September 2003 5 January 2004 Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S17 OF 2001 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION APPLICANT AND: INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT JAMES HAMILTON RAE SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J DATE: 25 JUNE 2003 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Judgment was given in this matter on 31 July 2002. Orders were made requiring payment of fines by the first and second respondents. Order 35 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules requires that where the Court imposes a fine, the Court shall order that the person on whom the fine is imposed pay the fine to the Registrar and specify the time within which the fine is required to be paid. Submissions have now been received from the applicant and the second respondent in relation to the specification of such a time. 2 In the case of the applicant it is accepted that the second respondent should now pay the sum of $2000.00 and that the second respondent should pay the balance of the amount due in six monthly instalments, the first instalment being payable one month after the payment of the $2000.00 lump sum and the instalments being $333.33 for the first five payments and a final instalment of $333.35. 3 In the case of the second respondent it is submitted that he should pay an amount of $2000.00 now and the balance in six months. He asserts, and it is not disputed, that he is a single income earner on a salary of $35,000.00 per annum on which he supports a wife and three primary school aged children. 4 In my view the submissions for the applicant adequately accommodate the issues raised by the second respondent. Orders will therefore be made in such terms. 5 In relation to the first respondent the position is complicated by the fact that on 14 January 2003 the first respondent was de-registered as a consequence of action by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ('ASIC') for failure to file an annual report. The property of the first respondent is consequently now vested in ASIC. It is not therefore available, as the second respondent contends, for realisation and application to liability said by him to exist between himself and the first respondent. In the circumstances the fines imposed in respect of the first respondent should be made payable within 28 days of the further orders. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice RD Nicholson. Associate: Dated: 25 June 2003 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr AA Jenshel Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor The First Respondent was not represented The Second Respondent represented himself Date of Hearing: 9 August 2002 Date of last written submission: 24 October 2002 Date of Judgment: 2 April 2003 Date of last written submissions as to orders made on 2 April 2003: 27 May 2003 Date of Judgment: 25 June 2003