Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
TRADE PRACTICES - Penalty - consumer product safety standard - labelling of children's nightclothes for fire hazard - mislabelling by manufacturer - wholesaler prosecuted for supply to retailer — contraventions due to inadequacy in checking procedures
- relevant factors in imposing penalty.
Trade Practices Act 1974 s.53(a), s.62(1)(a)
Gardam v Splendid Enterprises Pty Ltd [1987] ATPR 40-779
VERNON JOHN GARDAM v GEORGE WILLS & CO. LTD No. WAG 18 of 1987
FRENCH J. PERTH
16 JUNE 1988
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
NO. WAG 18 OF 1987
BETWEEN: VERNON JOHN GARDAM Prosecutor
and
GEORGE WILLS & CQ. LTD
Defendant
MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J.
DATE OF ORDER: 16 JUNE 1988
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. As to the first count, the defendant is fined $1,500. 2. As to the second count, the defendant is fined $1,000. 3. As to the third count, the defendant is fined $1,500.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
NO. WAG 18 OF 1987
BETWEEN: VERNON JOHN GARDAM Prosecutor
and
GEORGE WILLS & CO. LTD
Defendant
CORAM: FRENCH J. 16 June 1988
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON PENALTY On 10 June 1988 George Wills & Co. Ltd was convicted on
each of two counts of contraventions of s.53(a) of the Trade
Practices Act 1974 and one count of a contravention of s.62(1)(a) thereof. The convictions arose out of essentially one transaction, being the wholesale supply of children's nightdresses to a retailer, D.S. & M.E. Cooksley Pty Ltd. The nightdresses so supplied were not labelled, as required by the relevant consumer product safety standard, warning of their danger as a fire hazard. Instead they bore a label "Styled to Reduce Fire Danger". The fault for the mislabelling lies with the manufacturer of the garments, Splendid Enterprises Pty Ltd, and that company has already been fined a total of $5,000 on four counts arising out of its supply of the goods. As I observed in fixing the penalties in Gardam v Splendid Enterprises Pty Ltd (1987) ATPR 40-779 at 48,502, their level will vary according to the circumstances of
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