Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd - [1999] FCA 465

Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 465

JANETTE LYN HURLEY v McDONALDS AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Q 194 of 1999

DOWSETT J

14 OCTOBER 1999

BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 194 OF 1999

BETWEEN: JANETTE LYN HURLEY
Applicant
AND: McDONALDS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Respondent

#DATE 14:10:1999
JUDGE:
DOWSETT
DATE OF ORDER: 14 OCTOBER 1999
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to amend the statement of claim be refused.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 194 OF 1999

BETWEEN: JANETTE LYN HURLEY
Applicant
AND: McDONALDS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE: DOWSETT
DATE: 14 OCTOBER 1999
PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant seeks to amend the pleadings to raise a claim pursuant to s 51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) which provides that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person, engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable. It is a little difficult to explain briefly the context in which this allegation arises. It is alleged that in connection with a competition conducted by the respondent through its retail chain of fast food outlets, it invited customers to participate in a game of chance requiring the matching of tokens supplied with fast food and referring to "properties" of the kind found in the game of Monopoly. The idea of the game was that if one acquired what has been called a "property set" - that is, two or three different properties in the same category - then one would win a prize.

2 One aspect of the applicant's case is the assertion that a person who had possession of a set of winning tokens and forwarded them to the respondent would, by so doing, accept an offer made by the respondent, thereby becoming contractually entitled to receive the prize. A weakness in this argument is that the conditions of participation in the competition were posted in the various stores and, it appears to be accepted for present purposes, were part of any such contract. One of those conditions was:-

All prize claims and entries become the property of the promoter, and the promoter's decision on all matters pertaining to the game is final. No correspondence will be entered into.

3 A second condition is:

Printing and other quality control errors will not invalidate an otherwise valid prize claim. Prize claims will be subject to security and verification checks at the absolute discretion of the promoter. Prize claims are ineligible if mutilated, illegible, stolen, forged, reconstructed, altered, incomplete or tampered with in any way, or if they fail any of the promoters security and verification checks. McDonald's restaurant staff are unable to verify any claims other than instant win food prizes.

4 A…

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 Hurley v McDonalds Australia 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: [1999] FCA 465
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd, Janette Lyn Hurley sought to amend her statement of claim against McDonalds Australia Limited to include a claim under section 51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 51AB prohibits a corporation from engaging in unconscionable conduct in trade or commerce in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services. The amended claim arose from a competition conducted by McDonalds where customers were invited to participate in a game of chance, matching tokens supplied with fast food items to win prizes. The applicant argued that the respondent could not rely on certain clauses in the competition conditions to avoid liability for awarding the prizes, claiming such reliance would constitute unconscionable conduct.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the proposed amendment to include a claim under section 51AB was permissible. The court examined whether the respondent's conduct in relying on the competition conditions to avoid awarding the prizes could be considered unconscionable under section 51AB. The applicant argued that section 51AB covered conduct beyond the traditional meaning of unconscionable behaviour, including situations where a party refuses to honour a legitimate claim. The respondent contended that section 51AB should be interpreted to encompass only traditional equitable concepts of unconscionable conduct, which would not apply in this case.

The court concluded that section 51AB should be interpreted to include only traditional equitable concepts of unconscionable conduct, similar to those covered by section 51AA. The court noted that legislative history supported this interpretation, and the inclusion of both sections suggested a deliberate distinction in their scope. Additionally, the court found that allowing the amendment would likely extend the trial unnecessarily, which was undesirable given the interests of both parties in resolving the matter promptly. Therefore, the court refused the application for leave to amend the statement of claim.

Orders