Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jones (No 3)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought an action against Darryl Jones, a naturopath and founder of the Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre, for allegedly misleading conduct in relation to COVID-19 treatments. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The ACCC alleged that Mr Jones misled consumers by promoting the effectiveness of colloidal silver and hydrogen peroxide in preventing or treating COVID-19, which was not supported by scientific evidence. The dispute centred on whether Mr Jones had complied with a court order to remove specific content from his websites and provide certain information as directed by the court.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether Mr Jones had breached the orders by not removing the specified content or providing the required information. Another issue was whether Mr Jones's conduct constituted contempt of court, given that he had previously been found in contempt for similar actions. The court also needed to determine the appropriate penalty for the contempt, if any, and whether the contempt was willful. The court examined the evidence presented to determine the extent of Mr Jones's compliance with the orders and whether his actions could be considered contemptuous.

The court found that while Mr Jones had taken steps to comply with the orders, he had not fully satisfied the requirements. The court noted that Mr Jones had not provided a satisfactory explanation for not taking additional steps that could have led to the provision of the required information. The court concluded that the charges of contempt in relation to the specified websites and the provision of information were proved. However, the charges related to other alleged contempts were dismissed. The court decided that Mr Jones's conduct amounted to contempt of court, and submissions on penalty would be heard subsequently.

Pending the hearing on penalty, the court made declarations that the alleged contempts concerning the Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre website, the Fellowship website, and the provision of information were proven. The charges of contempt in relation to other actions were dismissed. The court's findings established that Mr Jones had not fully complied with the court orders, leading to the determination of contempt.