Legal Research
Cases
Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd

Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 2 June 2006 63 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bunnings Group Limited (formerly Bunnings Pty Ltd) v Laminex Group Limited [2006] FCA 682
TRADE PRACTICES – whether goods of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption – application of Div 2A of Part V of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – where particular products not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption – whether goods of a kind so acquired
WORDS & PHRASES – goods of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 74A(2)(a)
Theo Holdings Pty Ltd v Hockey (2000) 99 FCR 232 cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Association (1998) 194 CLR 355 cited
Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 470 cited
Webb Distributors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Victoria (1993) 179 CLR 15 cited
Devenish v Jewel Food Stores PtyLtd (1991) 172 CLR 32 cited
Zaravinos v Diary Farmers Co-Operative Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 195 cited
Diethelm Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1993) 44 FCR 450 considered
Commissioner of Taxation v Chubb Australia Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 557 considered
Clean Investments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 105 FCR 248 considered
Hygienic Lily Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 13 FCR 396 considered
Crago v Multiquip Pty Ltd & Dunogan Farm Tech Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-620 discussed
Minchillo v Ford Motor Company of Australia [1995] 2 VR 594 discussed
Jillawarra Grazing Co v John Shearer Ltd (1984) ATPR 40-441 discussed
Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan (1987) ASC 55-553 discussed
Westminster Properties Pty Ltd v Comco Constructions Pty Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 191 discussed
ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Vic) (1987) 82 ATC 5110 distinguished
Air International Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of Customs (2002) 121 FCR 149 discussed
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Newbound & Co Pty Ltd (1952) 10 ATD 59; 26 ALJR 386 cited
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Sherwood Overseas Pty Ltd (1985) 75 FLR 474 cited
O R Cormack Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1992) 92 ATC 4121 cited
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (1981) 59 FLR 415 cited
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Stewart (1984) 154 CLR 385 cited
BUNNINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 672 179) v LAMINEX GROUP LIMITED (ACN 004 093 092)
VID 941 of 2004
YOUNG J
2 JUNE 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 941 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BUNNINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 672 179)
APPLICANT

AND:

LAMINEX GROUP LIMITED (ACN 004 093 092)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

YOUNG J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
1.On 22 April 2005, the Court ordered pursuant to O 29 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules that the following question (‘the separate question’) be heard and determined separately from and before the trial of any other…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FCA 682
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bunnings Group Ltd took action against Laminex Group Ltd in a legal dispute. The case involved the interpretation and application of Section 74A(2)(a) of the Trade Practices Act. Specifically, the court was asked to determine the appropriate evidence and context for characterising goods under this section. The primary focus was on whether the statutory context and language differences in the Trade Practices Act required a distinct approach compared to cases involving sales tax exemptions. Additionally, the case addressed the scope of evidence that could be considered in making such a determination.

The legal issues revolved around the statutory interpretation of Section 74A(2)(a), particularly whether the statutory context and slight variations in language warranted a different characterisation approach compared to sales tax cases. The court also examined the types of evidence that should be taken into account when determining the nature of goods under this section. The key question was whether the evidence permitted a conclusion on the balance of probabilities that the goods fell within the specified category.

The court deliberated on the statutory context and the language used in Section 74A(2)(a), comparing it with the approach in sales tax cases. It noted that while sales tax cases often hinged on the statutory context and minor language differences, the Trade Practices Act required a nuanced interpretation of the statutory phrase. The court also considered the relevance and scope of evidence, noting that the evidence must permit a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Ultimately, the court found that the statutory context and evidence provided sufficient grounds to characterise the goods under Section 74A(2)(a).

The final orders confirmed that the answer to parts (a), (b), and (c) of the preliminary question was 'yes', indicating that the statutory context and evidence were sufficient to make the required determinations.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The answer to parts (a) (b) and (c) of the preliminary question is in each case ‘yes’.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In Carpet Call, Thomas J considered that carpet installed in a nightclub was within the scope of the statutory phrase. It was unnecessary for Thomas J to discuss the point at length as he decided the case on other grounds, but his Honour observed at 57,187:‘In my view “carpet” is a commodity, or goods, ordinarily acquired for domestic consumption, and it does not lose that description by reason of a commercial rating, or some quality which makes it last longer than other carpet normally supplied for use in a domestic setting. In fact the carpet supplied (as to which the warranty is alleged to apply) was of a domestic rating. The point may deserve discussion at greater length, but for the purpose of noting the submissions and expressing a provisional view, it is not necessary to engage in such discussion here.’what evidence is relevant in applying SECTION 74A(2)(a)? Two aspects of the sales tax cases merit further discussion because they have influenced my approach to the construction and application of the phrase found in s 74A(2)(a) of the TPA. The first aspect concerns the significance that attaches to the statutory context and small differences in the language of the statutory phrase. The issue is whether the statutory context of s 74A(2)(a), and the slightly different language used in that section, requires an approach to characterisation that differs from that adopted in the sales tax and customs cases. The second and related aspect concerns the proper scope of the evidence that can be taken into account in answering the statutory question posed by s 74A(2)(a). In Diethelm, both French J and Hill J emphasised that their approach to the construction and application of the sales tax exemption was heavily influenced by its statutory context. The issue in Diethelm was whether a manufacturer of office furniture was entitled to a special concessionary rate of sales tax on its office chairs on the ground that they fell within the category of ‘goods of a kind ordinarily used for household purposes, namely furniture’. The trial judge found that, while all of the relevant chairs could be bought for use in a home, a high proportion were high quality chairs that were designed and bought for office use. French J dismissed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the chairs in issue was correctly identified as office furniture, reflecting the market in which the chairs were manufactured and sold having regard, inter alia, to their quality, cost, design and intended and actual purchasers: at 465. His Honour thought that the appropriateness of this characterisation was not altered by the fact that the chairs were sometimes used for household purposes, and obviously performed physical functions similar to such chairs, as they were not of a kind ordinarily so used. Hill J was less rigid about the characterisation of the chairs. In the case of some of the chairs, Hill J felt that the characterisation in question should be answered negatively to the manufacturer. For instance, he considered that the high back executive office chair is not a chair of the kind ordinarily used for household purposes; rather it is of a kind ordinarily used for office purposes. The proper characterisation of other chairs was more debatable. In the result, Hill J held that the manufacturer, who had the burden of proof, had not established on the evidence that any particular chair was of a kind ordinarily used for household purposes. In his Honour’s view, the evidence did not permit a conclusion on the balance of probabilities that any of the types of chairs sold by the manufacturer was of a kind ordinarily used for household purposes: at 473. Consequently, Hill J dismissed the appeal. Whitlam J agreed with the judgment of Hill J.

Decision

Reasons for decision

YOUNG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: YOUNG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 941 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	BUNNINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 672 179) APPLICANT
AND:	LAMINEX GROUP LIMITED (ACN 004 093 092) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	YOUNG J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 JUNE 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE