Photo-dealer fined

Press, 29 April 1988, Page 12

Photo-dealer fined

Kelly Joseph Gall, trading as Prestige | Photography, was fined 5750 for a conviction under the Fair Trading Act after telling Judge Fraser in the District Court that he had debts totalling $200,000.

. The company had denied a charge of making a false or misleading representation about the service and goods (offered, by claiming the usual cost of these was far more, than asked for. ’ !

i It was convicted after a hearing, in which Gall represented himself. Gall told the court yesterday he accepted the Judge’s decision, and said the wording of the act made implications of “downright dishonesty,’ji which could mar his rej( cord for life. But he asked the Judge to accept his assurance that there was no dishonest intention.

“We have had ( a problem, there's no doubt about that. One thing went wrong: the suppliers could not supply the volume of work we were selling.

“This created a tremendous rippling effect from customer services to staff morale and cash

flow problems." After the conviction, there would be no further opposition to an interim injunction in the High Court ! which restrained the company from carrying on certain trade practices. I

He I was now a man , working alone, and a , heavy! fine would set him ( back pven further. He [Urged Judge Fraser ( to treat him leniently so I that he could continue to ’ work (on the photographic ( orders that were still out- ( standing.

He said he had $3OO in ' cash, a car with about $2OOO in equity on it,| and he owed about $200,000. Judge Fraser said the Fair Trading Act provided a maximum penalty of a ■ $30,000 fine for indivi-1 duals. i

’ "This act came i into force only last year! and! there is no precedent! known to me which establishes anything in the way! of a guideline on penalty.” he said.

Because of the injunction before the High Court there was no element of deterrence or prevention! of a repetition in this case.

Judge Fraser said he-

was asked to make orders for reparations to a list of people who had complained under the Commerce Act, a claim totalling $3BOO. Other complainants might still cdme forward.

"Before the court can make a finding it must be satisfied by admissable evidence that there has been loss or damage suffered.

( "It may well be that such evidence can be t>roughtbeforethecourt,but it is certaily not before the court at the moment."

'lt was now open jto persons who had suffered loss or damage to apply to the court, following the conviction, for reparation or compensation. He declined to make the order, except in two cases totalling $224.90 where there was already evidence before! the court.

The Judge noted ■ the court had only limited, vague information about Gall’s means. He had substantial trade debts, and a liability for reparations.

He fined the firm $750 and costs, and ordered Gall to pay $lOO towards the cost of prosecution.