Drew v Dibb

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Drew v Dibb [2008] FCA 1057

CUSTOMS – customs duties – when obligation incurred – obligation incurred on importation not entry for home consumption – whether lack of market value is relevant to whether goods are “dutiable goods” – whether section 35A duty to keep safe is applicable to warehouse licensees – whether a Collector must be satisfied by an accounting for lost or stolen goods that the goods had little value at the time of the loss or theft

Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth)
Customs Regulations 1926 (Cth)

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Tony Longo Pty Ltd (2001) 52 NSWLR 458
Collector of Customs for the State of New South Wales v Southern Shipping Company Limited (1962) 107 CLR 279
Sidebottom v Giuliano (2000) 98 FCR 579
The Collector of Customs (Vict) v Wilh Wilhelmson Agency Proprietary Limited (1956) 102 CLR 147

SHANE DREW v KEITH DIBB and SHIRLEY DIBB

VID 180 of 2008

FINKELSTEIN J
17 JULY 2008
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 180 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SHANE DREW
Applicant

AND:

KEITH DIBB
First Respondent

SHIRLEY DIBB
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JULY 2008

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $127,364.30.

2.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

VID 180 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SHANE DREW
Applicant

AND:

KEITH DIBB
First Respondent

SHIRLEY DIBB
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE:

17 JULY 2008

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The respondents hold a licence issued under Part V of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The licence permits them to use the premises at 34-38 Pipe Road, Laverton North, for purposes of warehousing goods. Between October 2005 and November 2005 quantities of Affair cigarettes owned by Eastern Enterprises Pty Ltd were placed into storage at the warehouse. The cigarettes had been imported into Australia in February 2004 but had not been entered for home consumption. On 12 November 2006, the cigarettes were stolen. Following the theft, the applicant, a Collector of customs, demanded that the respondents pay to the Commonwealth $127,364.30 as the customs duty payable on the cigarettes at the rate in force at the date of the demand. The demand was not satisfied. This action has been brought to recover the amount. The question is whether the respondents are required to pay that sum.

  2. Duty of customs is imposed by the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth). Section 15 relevantly provides that the duty is imposed on “goods imported into Australia on or after 1 July 1996”. The Customs Act is also relevant. Section 68 of that Act states that goods that are imported are required to be entered: (a) for home consumption;…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Drew v Dibb 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
[2008] FCA 1057
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drew v Dibb involved a dispute over unpaid wages. The applicant, Drew, sought payment from the respondents, Dibb and another party, for wages owed. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the respondents were legally obligated to pay the applicant the sum of $127,364.30, which represented unpaid wages.

The court needed to determine if the respondents had breached their employment contract by failing to pay the applicant the full amount of wages due. The applicant argued that the respondents had an obligation under the Fair Work Act 2009 to pay the wages, while the respondents contended that they had fulfilled their obligations under the contract. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the validity of the claim.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish that the respondents were liable for the unpaid wages. The court held that the respondents had failed to discharge the burden of proving that they had fulfilled their contractual obligations. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant the sum of $127,364.30, along with the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding. The court also noted that the costs were to be taxed in default of agreement between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $127,364.30.

2. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be taxed in default of agreement.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.