Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Chen

REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT 1 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC") has commenced the subject proceedings against the Respondent ("Chen") for breaches of ss 52, 53(c), 53(d) and 55A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act") relating to the storage of certain web site content, and the transmission of that web content to internet users. Chen appears to reside overseas. There are three offending internet web sites defined in the statement of claim herein, respectively entitled the "Imitation Site", the "Witestar Site", and the "World's Box Office Site". All are accessible by the general public in Australia, as well as overseas. It is alleged that Chen has engaged in serious misrepresentations to members of the Australian public, as well as to overseas residents, concerning the obtaining of Sydney Opera House tickets. A comprehensive statement of claim has been filed by ACCC, and service thereof outside of Australia is now sought, along with interlocutory injunctions. 2 The orders presently sought are as follows: "1. Pursuant to Order 8 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules, the Applicant be granted leave to serve the originating process in the proceedings, being the Application and Statement of Claim, outside the Commonwealth on terms and conditions that the Applicant employ private agents in the United States of America and/or the United Kingdom to effect personal service on the Respondent.

4 The affidavit material establishes the following matters: (i) prima facie evidence of the alleged statutory breaches in Australia involving the use of telephonic services within subs 6(3) of the Act, and the availability of the injunctive relief sought pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the Act, notwithstanding the absence of any contraventions by a corporation. (ii) The likelihood of continuation of the statutory breaches by Chen, and the sustaining of loss and damage already by members of the public both in Australia and overseas, arising out of action taken on the assumption of the authenticity of the websites. (iii) The apparent residence of Chen overseas, most probably in the United States of America at least when the contraventions occurred. 5 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction in relation to the subject proceedings for the purposes of Order 8 rule 2(2)(a), and that the ACCC has a prima facie case for the relief sought within Order 8 rule 2(2)(b) and (c) in respect of the abovementioned statutory contraventions. In that regard, I have been assisted by the analysis of authority relating to the granting of relief of the nature here sought for contraventions of the Act which was undertaken by Von Doussa J in Delco Australia Pty Ltd v Equipment Enterprises Incorporated trading as Kukla Trenchers [2000] FCA 821, and also what was said by Gummow J in Business World Computers Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1988) 82 ALR 499 at 503 concerning interlocutory mandatory injunctions. An undertaking as to damages on the part of the ACCC is not required: see sub s 80(6) of the Act. No order as to costs is presently sought. 6 The proceedings are listed in the docket of Sackville J, who was unable to preside over the proceedings today due to an earlier commitment. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)