Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 4) [2012] FCA 503 Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 4) [2012] FCA 503
Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v LUALHATI JUTSEN, TINA AROHA BROWNLEE and DAVID GRAEME SCANLON
File number: NSD 529 of 2010
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 18 May 2012
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – where respondents were found to have participated in a pyramid selling scheme in contravention of s 65AAC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act) – pecuniary penalties imposed pursuant to s 76E of the Act.
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) Pt 3-1 Div 3 and s 232 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 6(3), 52, 53, 65AAC, 65AAD, 76E and 83
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 3) [2011] FCA 1352 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Date of hearing: 9 February 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 68
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S White SC with Mr T Brennan
Solicitor for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the Respondents: The First, Second and Third Respondents appeared in person
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 529 of 2010
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: LUALHATI JUTSEN
First Respondent
TINA AROHA BROWNLEE
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