Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse—Regulation of trading practices—Prohibition of sending certain documents from outside a State—Document asserting right to payment for directory entry—Validity of Law—Regulatory law—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92. Trade Practices (Q.)—Unordered goods and services—Assertion of right to payment for directory entry—Assertion against Crown—Whether a "person"—Receipt of prescribed document deemed assertion of right to payment by sender—Ambiguity—Interpretation and validity of Act—Unordered Goods and Services Act, 1973-1974 (Q.), s. 8.
Decisions
1979, April 5. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland which allowed an appeal from a decision of a stipendiary magistrate dismissing a complaint brought by the present respondent against the appellant under s. 8 of the Unordered Goods and Services Act, 1973 (Q.), as amended, ("the Act"). (at p641)
2. Section 8 of the Act provides as follows:
"(1) A person shall not assert a right to payment of any charge or fee for the making of a directory entry or the rendering of a prescribed service, whether made or to be made or rendered or to be rendered by him or another person and whether made or to be made or rendered or to be rendered within or without the State or partly within and partly without the State, unless he has reasonable cause to believe (proof of which shall lie upon him) that a note complying with section 7 has been signed by or on behalf of the person against or in relation to whom that right is asserted.
Penalty: $500.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), in proceedings for an offence that is a contravention of that subsection the receipt by a person, at any place within the State, of a prescribed document relating to a directory entry or prescribed service that was sent or purports to have been sent, within or without the State, by or on behalf of the person who made or proposes to make that entry or rendered or proposes to render that service shall be deemed to be an assertion by that person, made at the place where the receipt occurs, of a right to payment from the first-mentioned person of a charge or fee for the making of the directory entry or the rendering of the prescribed service, as the case may be. (3) In this section 'prescribed document' in relation to a directory entry or prescribed service means a writing that asserts or implies that the payment of a charge or fee should be made for the making of the directory entry or the rendering of the prescribed service or that sets out the price for the making of the directory entry or rendering of the prescribed service."
In order…
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.
Continue reading McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith [1979] HCA 19
Case
[1979] HCA 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of Mr. Smith. The dispute concerned the termination of Mr. Smith's employment as a sales representative by McGraw-Hinds. Mr. Smith alleged that his dismissal was wrongful and sought damages for breach of contract.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether McGraw-Hinds had validly terminated Mr. Smith's employment. Specifically, the court had to determine if Mr. Smith's conduct, which involved allegedly soliciting business for a competitor while still employed by McGraw-Hinds, constituted a repudiation of his employment contract, thereby justifying his summary dismissal.
The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that Mr. Smith's actions did not amount to a repudiation of his contract. The court reasoned that the terms of Mr. Smith's employment contract did not expressly prohibit him from seeking future employment or making preparations for it during his notice period. Furthermore, the court held that the conduct, as established by the evidence, did not demonstrate a clear intention on Mr. Smith's part to abandon his contractual obligations or to evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract. The principles applied focused on the high threshold required to establish repudiation, requiring conduct that unequivocally demonstrates an intention to no longer be bound by the contract.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and ordering that judgment be entered for Mr. Smith.