- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd)  FCA 1441
- Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)  FCA 1462
- AZAEF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  FCAFC 3
- Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm)  FCAFC 2
Contempt of court
Civil contempt – construction of injunction at a contempt hearing – whether terms of the injunction clear and unambiguous
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ACN 117 372 915 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd)  FCA 1441 (17 December 2015), the sixth and seventh respondents (together, NRM) were found guilty of contempt of court. At an earlier trial, various respondents including NRM were found to have engaged in unconscionable conduct in the marketing and sale of medical treatments for premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in contravention of s 51AB of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (see  FCA 368).
The relief that North J granted at that time included injunctions restraining NRM from making certain statements or representations to, relevantly, any ‘prospective patient’ as to, among other things, (i) the ‘efficacy’ of certain treatments and (ii) the ‘efficacy’ of any medications or medical services offered.
The ACCC alleged that, by a series of radio and television advertisements and statements on a website, NRM breached the injunction. This being a case of civil contempt, the elements that the ACCC had to prove included that the terms of the injunction were clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance. NRM argued against a finding of contempt on the basis that parts of the injunctions (such as the words ‘prospective patient’ and the word ‘efficacy’) were not clear and unambiguous. NRM also disputed that the alleged statements contravened the injunction. Moshinsky J rejected NRM’s contentions and made declarations of contempt.