Commissioner for Fair Trading v Partridge - [2006] NSWSC 478

CITATION: Commissioner for Fair Trading v Partridge [2006] NSWSC 478

HEARING DATE(S): 22/5/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
31 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Convicted of the contempt charged in count 1 and in respect of this offence directed to perform community service work for a period of 150 hours; Convicted of the contempt charged in count 2 and directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for a term of 12 months. It is a condition of the bond that the offender will appear before the Court if called on to do so at any time during the term of the bond and that he be of good behaviour during the term of the bond.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Home Building Act 1989

CASES CITED: Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527; (2001) 125 A Crim R 473
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Wood v Staunton (No. 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183

PARTIES: Commissioner for Fair Trading (Plaintiff)
Michael Anthony Partridge (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 14158/05

COUNSEL: P. Griffin (Plaintiff)
D. Bannerman (Sol) (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: D. Catt (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
D. Bannerman (Solicitor) (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Wednesday 31 May 2006

14158/05 Commissioner for Fair Trading v Michael Anthony Partridge
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: On 22 May 2005 the offender, Michael Anthony Partridge, pleaded guilty to two charges brought by the Commissioner for Fair Trading (the Commissioner) in the following terms:

Home Building Act

2 The first charge was particularised as the offender’s conduct in engaging Alpha Building Services Pty Limited to undertake building inspections of six residential properties on condition that Alpha Building Services Pty Limited paid to him a portion of the fee charged to the consumer who requested the inspection.

3 The proceedings were commenced by notice of motion filed on 11 November 2005.

4 The background to the proceedings may be shortly stated. The Commissioner commenced proceedings against the offender seeking orders pursuant to s 138 of the Home Building Act 1989 (the HBA) that he be restrained from performing building consultancy and other related work by reason that he was not licensed under Pt 3 of the HBA to carry out such work.

5 The summons came before Hoeben J on 28 September…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Fair Trading v Partridge 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 478
Decision Date: 31 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner for Fair Trading v Partridge was heard by Bell J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Michael Anthony Partridge, was charged with two counts of contempt for breaching court orders that restrained him from performing unlicensed building consultancy work and from maintaining his website. The first count involved Partridge's engagement of a contractor to perform building inspections, while the second count pertained to his failure to remove his website from the internet as ordered.

The legal issues at hand involved determining the appropriate penalties for contempt of court orders designed to protect consumers. Bell J considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offence, Partridge's awareness of the consequences of his actions, the reasons behind his contempt, and his character and antecedents. The court also evaluated mitigating factors such as Partridge's plea of guilty, his good character, and the likelihood of reoffending.

Bell J concluded that while the offence warranted imprisonment, other sentencing options were more appropriate. Partridge was deemed suitable for a community service order due to his limited physical capabilities post-surgery. For the second count, a good behaviour bond was deemed suitable. Bell J ultimately sentenced Partridge to 150 hours of community service for the first count and a 12-month good behaviour bond for the second count, with conditions to appear before the court if required and to maintain good behaviour.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to court orders aimed at protecting consumers and highlights the court's discretion in sentencing for contempt, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.

Orders