Ducret, Alan Raymond v Colourshot Pty Ltd - [1981] FCA 9

I N T H E F E D E R A L C O U R T OF A U S T R A L I A - ) VG Nos. 79, 81, 82,

_-._ ~

85, 87, 89, 91, 92,

V I C T O R I A D T S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y 94, 96, 97, 99, 100,
101, 103 and 104

D I V I S l O N , G E N E R A L ‘ of i980

I N T P R A C T I C E S

H

E

M A T T E R

OF

THE

TRADE

A C T 1974

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

-

A n d :

C O L O U R S H O T

P T Y . D e f e n d a n t

L T D .

( V G N o . 79 of 1980) ,

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

A n d :

C O L O U R S H O T

P T Y . D e f e n d a n t

L T D .
I

( V G N o . 81 o f 1980)

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET -

Prosecutor

( V G N o . 82 of 1980)

- A n d : COLOURSBOT PTY. -- L T D ~

D e f e n d a n t

. 2 .

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

And: ' COLOURSHOT PTY. LTD.

D e f e n d a n t

(VG No. 85 of 1980)

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

r Prosecutor

A n d :

C O L O U R S H O T

P T Y . D e f e n d a n t

L T D .

(VG N o . 87 of 1980)

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

A n d :

C O L O U R S H O T

P T Y . D e f e n d a n t

L T D .

(VG No. 89 of 1980)

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

A n d : C O L O U R S H O T P T Y . D e f e n d a n t L T L .

(VG NO. 91 Of 1980)

. .
3 .

B e t w e e n : ALAN RAYMOND DUCRET

Prosecutor

A n d : BARRY STACEY
_ I

D e f e n d a n t

(VG No. 9 2 o f 1 9 8 0 )

B e t w…

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 Ducret, Alan Raymond v Colourshot Pty Ltd 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: [1981] FCA 9
Decision Date: 11 Feb 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard a case involving multiple proceedings against Colourshot Pty Ltd and Barry Stacey, accused of various breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The proceedings related to fraudulent business practices that exploited individuals of modest means. The defendants were charged with inviting participation in a business activity requiring investment and labour, making false or misleading statements about the profitability or risks involved. Colourshot Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to seven charges, while Barry Stacey, as the Managing Director and guiding spirit of the company, pleaded guilty to nine charges of being knowingly concerned in the offences committed by the company. The court found that the defendants' actions were deliberate, heartless, and systematic exploitation, causing significant financial loss and distress to the victims.

The court considered the nature of the false statements made, the absence of any valid business activity, and the substantial profits made by the defendants at the expense of the victims. The court emphasised the importance of punishing such conduct to deter similar offences in the future. In assessing the fines, the court referred to section 79(2) of the Trade Practices Act, which limits the fines for multiple related offences to the maximum fine applicable for a single offence. The court concluded that the offences were of the same nature and occurred within a short timeframe, warranting a substantial but not excessive fine.

The court imposed fines totaling $95,000 on Colourshot Pty Ltd and $35,000 on Barry Stacey. Additionally, imprisonment terms were set for default in paying the fines, with specific conditions for service of notices and payment deadlines. The court also ordered the defendants to pay costs associated with the proceedings. Liberty to apply for relief under the Crimes Act 1914 was reserved, and the matter concerning granting relief to the victims was also reserved for future consideration.

Orders