Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Foster v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCA 953 Citation: Foster v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCA 953
Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Sensaslim Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3) [2012] FCA 939
Parties: PETER CLARENCE FOSTER v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION, PETER LESLIE O'BRIEN, ADAM TROY ADAMS, MICHAEL ANTHONY BOYLE and SENSASLIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
File number: NSD 1286 of 2012
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 2 September 2012
Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Application for leave to appeal – whether decision of primary judge attended by sufficient doubt – whether principle in Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 extends to civil penalty proceedings
Legislation: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 475
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Reid (No 1) (2006) 151 FCR 540 cited Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261 applied Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 distinguished New South Wales v Canellis (1994) 181 CLR 309 followed Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 101 FCR 20 followed
Date of hearing: 2 September 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
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