Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 (ACT)

The case involved the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Commissioner for Fair Trading, represented by the Minister for Commerce and Regulation, who sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 (ACT) were invalid and orders that the Commissioner refrain from exercising certain powers under the Act. The case was heard in the ACT Supreme Court.

The central legal issues revolved around the validity of specific provisions of the Act, including those concerning the power to seize evidence, prepare draft codes of practice, approve codes of practice, and request undertakings following a contravention of an approved code. The Commissioner argued that these provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the Commonwealth Acts that form part of the ACT law.

The court examined the scope and nature of the powers granted to the Commissioner under the Act. It held that the powers to seize evidence, prepare draft codes of practice, and approve codes of practice were valid exercises of the ACT’s legislative power. The court found that these powers were consistent with the Commonwealth’s concurrent legislative power under section 51(xx) of the Constitution, as they related to fair trading and consumer protection matters. The court also determined that the power to request undertakings following a contravention of an approved code was a valid exercise of the ACT’s legislative power, as it was an incident of the power to approve codes of practice.

The court ultimately upheld the validity of the provisions in question, dismissing the Commissioner's claims. It found no inconsistency between the ACT legislation and the Commonwealth Acts. The Commissioner's appeal to the High Court was subsequently dismissed.