Legal Research
Cases
John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW)

John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW)

Link copied

Case Copied 17 September 1987 62 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court of Australia

Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ.

John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW)

[1987] HCA 42

ORDER

Appeal allowed with costs. Order that the order of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal dated 2 May 1985 be set aside, and that in lieu thereof the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Sept. 17

Mason C.J., Deane and Dawson JJ.

On 27 January 1984 John Michael Clayton ("the informant") laid before a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales an information alleging an offence by John L. Pty. Ltd. ("the appellant") against the Consumer Protection Act 1969 NSW. At the time, the informant was an officer of the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs. The information asserted that on 28 January 1983 the appellant "did commit an offence" against s. 32(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. That sub-section, which is in Pt III, is in these terms:

Any person who publishes or causes to be published any statement which—

(a) is intended or apparently intended to promote the supply or use of goods or services or the disposal of interests in land; and

(b) is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular,

is guilty of an offence against this Act.

The information alleged, in the terms of the sub-section, that the appellant had caused "to be published a statement apparently intended to promote the supply of goods, to wit motor vehicles, which statement was to [the appellant's] knowledge false or misleading in a material particular". It went on to identify the factual contents of the particular alleged offence as follows:

in that in an advertisement in the Daily Mirror on that day, it did cause to be published the following false or misleading statement:—

Australia Day Week-end holiday offer! 1,000 litres of free petrol! for every customer buying a car over $3,000.00 this week-end.

In so describing the ingredients of the particular offence, the information failed to identify the "material particular" in which the published statement was alleged to be false or misleading.

Section 56(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides that proceedings for an offence against that Act (Pt V excepted) may "be taken and prosecuted only by a person acting with the authority in writing of the Minister" and "be disposed of summarily" before a court of petty sessions (constituted by a magistrate), an industrial magistrate or "the Supreme Court in its summary jurisdiction". Section 56(4) provides that such proceedings "shall be commenced by information but may not be commenced after the expiration of 12 months after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed." The proceedings in the present case were taken and prosecuted in the Supreme Court in its summary jurisdiction with the written authority of the relevant Minister (i.e. the Acting Minister for Consumer Affairs). They were instituted on the last day of the twelve months…

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 John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) 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: [1987] HCA 42
Decision Date: 17 September 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John L Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Attorney-General (NSW) (the respondent) to refuse to grant a licence to conduct a casino. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Attorney-General's decision to refuse the licence was vitiated by an error of law, specifically whether the Attorney-General had failed to take into account relevant considerations or taken into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision. The applicant contended that the Attorney-General had acted unlawfully by considering matters outside the scope of the statutory power conferred upon him.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the Attorney-General's power to grant or refuse a casino licence was not unfettered and that the decision-making process was subject to the principles of administrative law. The Court found that the Attorney-General had, in fact, taken into account irrelevant considerations, namely the applicant's alleged association with criminal elements, which were not matters that the relevant legislation empowered him to consider when determining whether to grant a licence. The Court emphasised that administrative decision-makers must confine themselves to the purposes for which the power was granted and consider only those matters which the statute directs or permits them to consider.

The High Court ordered that the Attorney-General's decision be quashed and remitted the matter back to the Attorney-General for reconsideration according to law.

Orders