Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd v Australian Postal Corp [2000] FCA 475

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd v Australian Postal Corporation [2000] FCA 475

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – meaning of "leaflet" within s 30(1)(c) of the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth). WORDS AND PHRASES – "leaflet" Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth): s 29, s 30(1)(c)

PAC-RIM PRINTING PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION V 295 of 1999 BLACK CJ, LEE and GOLDBERG JJ 12 APRIL 2000

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 295 of 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: PAC-RIM PRINTING PTY LTD

Appellant AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGES: BLACK CJ, LEE and GOLDBERG JJ DATE OF ORDER: 12 APRIL 2000 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including any reserved costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 295 of 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: PAC-RIM PRINTING PTY LTD

Appellant AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGES: BLACK CJ, LEE and GOLDBERG JJ DATE OF ORDER: 12 APRIL 2000 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Justice Weinberg, granting, in respect of a particular article, an application by Australian Postal Corporation ("Australia Post") for a declaration against Pac‑Rim Printing Pty Ltd that it had engaged in conduct in contravention of s 29 of the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) ("the Act") by carrying or delivering certain articles within Australia. An application by Australia Post for the same relief in respect of other articles was rejected by Weinberg J, it having been conceded by Australia Post at the trial that the carriage and delivery of those articles did not contravene the Act. His Honour also rejected Australia Post's application for an injunction. Weinberg J's reasons for judgment are reported: Australian Postal Corporation v Pac‑Rim Printing Pty Ltd (1999) 163 ALR 372. 2 The facts were not in dispute before his Honour and do not need to be set out again in these reasons. It is sufficient to note that the appellant carries on the business of printing, addressing and delivering advertising material, and that in or about May 1998 it collected and delivered articles to some 417,000 residents of Queensland for Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd ("Golden Casket"). 3 The question for decision in this appeal can be simply stated: is the particular article in respect of which his Honour made the declaration appealed from (the "article") a "leaflet" within the meaning of s 30(1)(c) of the Act so as to fall outside the scope of services expressly reserved to Australia Post under s 29? Weinberg J decided that it was not. 4 The article was tendered as part of Exhibit A2 at the trial and is described in his Honour's reasons for judgment as "item (a)". It comprises a sheet of A4 size paper, folded in half and printed on both sides. Some of the printing is in colour, including the Winners Circle playing card on the front, the photograph of "Iris" on the back and the signature of Fiona Campbell. The article is reproduced below: