Do Not Call Register has actually fined someone

You're being mischievous, Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

"DavidW"

** In the past - it has taken me up to 10 requests ( each one getting stronger and more irate ) just to get Sylvia to POST exactly what it is she is thinking.

In every case, it was not worth the trouble.

.... Phil

A bit, it's true.

Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

He's actually being a bit cagey. I think he realises he's on shaky ground, but isn't sure why, and is hoping that I'll reveal all before he makes an even more embarassing blunder.

Sylvia.

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Sylvia.

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.

------------------------------------------------------

"Jon"

** Bullshit.

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

If you think there is one - cite it.

In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal calls to be made.

So she is liable to pay the fine.

---------------------------------------

** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to penalty.

The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that illegal thing.

Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the penalty.

That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal liability.

Hence my ORIGINAL comment :

" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."

.... Phil

To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth. As a general rule, directors are not liable for the debts of their company. There are exceptions, but in each case the exception is identified by law. Unless there is such a law making debts arising from penalties such an exception, there will be no liability.

If there is such a law, it should be possible to cite it.

Sylvia.

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

** Wrong.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate, illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to have a defence.

I say she has none.

..... Phil

The court would have imposed the fine to the company. That's how it works.

Tax debts can be recovered from the directors but this is not a tax debt. Also, if a company trades while insolvent then the directors can be held liable for any subsequent debts. But the case in point is none of these things.

ACMA media release.

"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making certain telemarketing calls."

So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director. Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if the company cannot, you have nothing.

Sylvia.

"Jon"

** There is no point is saying what it is not.

Fuckwit.

... Phil

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** Stale news.

The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is about to be struck off.

** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA. ** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate, illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to have a defence.

I say she has none.

What do you say is her defence?

..... Phil

Debt proceedings cannot be initiated against the sole director if the debts are owed by the company. The case would be struck out due to a wrongly named defendant.

You don't get it. Directors can only be held liable in certain situations: eg. tax debt, trading while insolvent. YOU need to explain why the director will be liable for the company's fine.

"Jon the Know Nothing Jerk "

** Complete bollocks.

The ACMA case in the Federal Court was against the company AND it's sole director.

The Court made orders against BOTH.

** Reckless, illegal behaviour that incurs large debt IS one of them as is criminal behaviour.

Particularly when there is only ONE person, the sole director, responsible.

Note that the " one gal and a dog " company is about to be struck off the register by ASIC.

Very likely for not filing documents or responding to ASIC.

Registration is about to run out too, in August.

... Phil

As you mentioned Phil she's a Kiwi :)

Her obvious defence is that she doesn't owe the money.

Sylvia.

"Rob"

** Hey - that was not me with the "racist " remark.

It was a usenet entity called " SG1 " ..... ????

..... Phil

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn....

She would say that - wouldn't she ??

ROTFL

.... Phil

She'd probably add that the Commonwealth had not shown the court any evidence that she owes the money.

Sylvia.

NO I suggested she may be.