Federal Court of Australia
. '
LrQSdr
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NO. VG102 of 1985 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. VG1023 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION ) NO. VG104 of 1985
NO. VG105 of 19985 NO. VG106 of 1985 NO. VG107 of 1985 : NO. VG103 of 1985 a NO. VG1O9 of 1985
BETWEEN: WALTER KORCZYNSKI
Prosecutor
AND: WES LOFTS (AUST.) PTY. LTD.
Defendant
MINUTE OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Jenkinson J. DATE OF ORDER: 19 June, 1986 WHERE MADE: Melbourne
The Court orders that upon each information the defendant be convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $750 and
that in each proceeding the defendant pay to the prosecutor his costs of the proceeding.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
ne
IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NO. VG102 of 1985 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY y NO. VG103 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION ) NO. VG104 of 1985 NO. VG105 of 1985
NO. VG106 of 1985
NO. VG107 of 1985
*. NO. VG108 of 1985
NO. VG109 of 1985
BETWEEN: WALTER KORCAUYNSKI
Prosecutor
AND: WES LOFTS (AUST.) PTY. LTD.
Defendant
CORAM: Jenkinson J. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 19 June, 1986
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Each of eight informations for contraventions of s.53(a)
of the Trade Practices Act 1974 having been proved, the defendant
is to be convicted and fined for each of those offences.
Particulars of each contravention are disclosed in the
reasons published on 31 October 1985 for the conclusions, which were then stated, that the informations had been proved. What is
now stated is by way of addition to those reasons.
It appeared in evidence that in April or May 1984 a senior servant or officer of the defendant company enquired by telephone cf a Commonwealth public servant what "parcentage of local content" would - justify labelling an articie of commerce
"made in Australia". The public servant, who was at the time First Assistant Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce, disclaimed knowledge of the answer to the enquiry, but indicated that he did not think the answer would be determined by the application of what he described as "hard and fast rules". No officer or servant of the defendant gave evidence as to what influence the telephone conversation had on the defendant's directors. I understood that counsel for the defendant sought to use the evidence of the approach to the public servant and of the public servant's response as indicating a desire on the part of thosa who were controlling the defendant to label the masking tape they were selling in conformity with the law andas indicating that they had received, in response to the inquiry, no warning that the labelling adopted was contrary to law. On the other hand the large volume of the defendant's trade in the masking tape suggested - and no other evidence contradicted the suggestion - that the defendant was at relevant times a company in a substantial way of business and that it could have afforded to pay for legal advice about the lawfulness of the course it was pursuing in respect of labelling masking tape. The Trade
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate