Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Daiso Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd

The case of Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Daiso Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the alleged contraventions of product safety standards by the respondent, Daiso Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd. The goods in question included plastic bath toys and plastic animal toys, and the central issue was whether these goods were classified as "toys for children up to and including 36 months of age," thereby making them subject to the applicable product safety standards. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved the interpretation of the phrase "[t]oys for children up to and including 36 months of age" in the Schedule to the Consumer Protection Notice and whether the toys in question fell under this classification. The court also had to consider the evidence provided by experts, Associate Professor Kaufman and Dr Jarman, and determine the suitability of the toys for children up to 36 months of age based on their physical capabilities and the potential safety hazards. The court had to balance the guidelines with the expert evidence to come to a conclusion on the matter.

In its reasoning, the court accepted the evidence of Dr Jarman that the toys in question were of interest to children over 12 months of age and that children over 18 months to 3 years would certainly be interested in them for pretend play. The court also accepted Associate Professor Kaufman's evidence that children younger than two years could interact with the toys in various ways, even if they lacked the motor ability to use them as intended. The court concluded that each of the disputed toys fell within the phrase "[t]oys for children up to and including 36 months of age" in the Schedule to the Consumer Protection Notice and, as such, they did not comply with the applicable product safety standard. Consequently, the court found that Daiso contravened s 106 of the Australian Consumer Law and s 106 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) in relation to these toys.

The court ordered that by a specified date, the parties file an agreed minute of orders, setting out the declarations of contravention to be made against the respondent. If the parties could not reach an agreement, they were required to file their proposed orders on liability and short submissions in support of their proposed orders by another specified date. The court also reserved the right to apply for further orders and reserved costs.