ACMA v Marketing Australia P/L- When should a penalty be levied for contraventions of the Do Not Call Register

List member Matthew Williams , led by Hodge KC, recently appeared for the second and fourth respondents in Australian Communications and Media Authority v V Marketing Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 4) [2025] FCA 287. The matter concerned the largest ever prosecution by the ACMA for alleged contraventions of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth). The regulator sought a penalty of some $800,000 against the second respondent, in relation to its admitted contraventions of that Act. The Federal Court acceded to the submission that, in the unique circumstances of the case – and having regard to the principles concerning the setting of a penalty espoused by the High Court in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 274 CLR 450 – no penalty at all ought to be levied. The Court earlier found in favour of the director of the second respondent, dismissing the regulator’s claims against him. In a further judgment, the Court ordered the regulator to pay the relevant corporate respondent’s costs of the proceeding, from the date of an offer to settle, on the indemnity basis, and the director respondent’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.