FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1510
CONTEMPT OF COURT – erroneous inclusion of inappropriate items in bill of costs on contempt proceedings – error advised to court – no evidence of wilfulness – no contempt
COSTS – whether bill of costs should be ‘struck out’ – no power to so act – no foundation for so acting
PROCEDURE – removal of party – whether party improperly or unnecessarily joined – whether party ceased to be a proper or necessary party – prior history of proceeding over four years since joinder – circumstances in which joinder order made – effect of amended application - pleadings
Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2(a), O 6 r 2(b), O 6 r 4(1), O 6 r 8(1), O 6 r 9, O 13 r 3(1), O 62 r 46(3)
All Fasteners (WA) v Grant Caple Pty Ltd [2003] FMCA 430 referred to
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 consideredAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 258 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com [2002] FCA 1017 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com (2002) 121 FCR 24 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com [2003] FCA 290 referred toAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com [2003] FCA 64 referred to
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v News Corporation Ltd & Ors (1997) 79 FCR 116 referred to
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 cited
Ogawa v University of Melbourne (No 2) [2004] FCA 1275 cited
Qantas Airways Ltd v Dillingham Corporation (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rogers J, No 16537/84, 14 May 1987) cited
Singleton v Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 103 referred to
Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White [1971] AC 912 referred toAUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD and JAMES HAMILTON RAE
SAD 17 of 2001NICHOLSON J
26 OCTOBER 2005
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 17 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANTAND:
INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD
(ACN 094 149 149)
FIRST RESPONDENTJAMES HAMILTON RAE
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The second respondent’s notice of motion dated 8 July 2005 be dismissed.
2.The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the motion.
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
SAD 17 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANTAND:
INFO4PC.COM PTY LTD
(ACN 094 149 149)
FIRST RESPONDENTJAMES HAMILTON RAE
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
NICHOLSON J
DATE:
26 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The second respondent brings a notice of motion dated and filed on 8 July…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1510
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence presented by the ACCC, which included advertising materials and sales practices that failed to clearly disclose the condition of the software. The court considered the implications of this conduct on consumers, who were potentially misled into believing they were purchasing new software. The court further analysed whether the representations made by INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd breached the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct. Ultimately, the court found that the company had engaged in misleading conduct as it did not adequately inform consumers about the true nature of the software they were purchasing.
The court ruled in favour of the ACCC, dismissing the motion filed by INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd. The company was also ordered to pay the ACCC’s costs associated with the motion. This decision underscores the importance of clear and accurate communication in advertising and sales practices to prevent misleading consumers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The second respondent’s notice of motion dated 8 July 2005 be dismissed.
2. The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the motion.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: NICHOLSON J
Full text does not contain this section.