Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs [1999]
(1999) 64 S.A.S.R. 225 · Supreme Court of South Australia · Australia (South Australia)
RemediesremediesRemediesEnforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt
Issue
Whether a person who gives an undertaking to the court can be punished for contempt for breaching it.
Held
Yes, an undertaking to the court has the same force as an order; breach is contempt.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is included in the Remedies case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt. The reported citation is (1999) 64 S.A.S.R. 225, and the decision is associated with Supreme Court of South Australia. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is: A trader gave an undertaking to the court not to engage in misleading conduct, and subsequently breached it. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Remedies, use the facts to explain why Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is reported as a decision of Supreme Court of South Australia. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether a person who gives an undertaking to the court can be punished for contempt for breaching it.
Held
Yes, an undertaking to the court has the same force as an order; breach is contempt.
Ratio Decidendi
A voluntary undertaking given to the court is enforceable by contempt proceedings if breached; it has the same legal effect as a court order.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: A voluntary undertaking given to the court is enforceable by contempt proceedings if breached; it has the same legal effect as a court order. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Remedies, the case should be compared with related authorities on Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is a case to use when a Remedies answer needs an authority on Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs ((1999) 64 S.A.S.R. 225) strengthens a Remedies answer because the case reflects the principle that A voluntary undertaking given to the court is enforceable by contempt proceedings if breached; it has the same legal effect as a court order. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether a person who gives an undertaking to the court can be punished for contempt for breaching it. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
remedies
Remedies
Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt in Remedies. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Enforcement of undertakings; equitable remedies; contempt, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Thomson v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with A trader gave an undertaking to the court not to engage in misleading conduct, and subsequently breached it., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.