Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Levi (No 3)

In this case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) initiated proceedings against Mr Bon Levi for alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The proceedings related to the sale of distributorships, primarily involving a business called 'Little Joe Snax'. The alleged breaches occurred between 1 August 2003 and 20 July 2004. The court found that Mr Levi was a franchisor and the agreements he offered were franchise agreements. It was determined that Mr Levi failed to comply with the Franchising Code of Conduct and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 52 of the TPA.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the conduct of Mr Levi warranted a suspended sentence of imprisonment, the admissibility of previous criminal history in determining the penalty, and the appropriate length of the term of imprisonment. The court concluded that the contempts were serious and deliberate, with Mr Levi gaining substantial financial benefits. The complainants suffered loss, frustration, and wasted time due to Mr Levi’s conduct. The court considered factors such as Mr Levi’s age, health, and previous similar conduct when determining the penalty.

The court found that a suspended sentence of imprisonment would not be appropriate given the seriousness of the contempts. It held that previous criminal history could be taken into account in determining the penalty, and in this case, Mr Levi's previous conduct should be considered. The court also noted that factors such as Mr Levi's late guilty pleas, age, health issues, and lack of remorse were relevant in mitigation. The court ultimately decided on a term of imprisonment of 10 months, with the first 4 months to be served immediately and the remaining 6 months suspended subject to compliance with certain conditions for 5 years. Additionally, Mr Levi was ordered to pay the ACCC's costs on an indemnity basis.