Legal Research
Cases
PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2003] VSCA 7 28 February 2003

Limitation Periods

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Repeal of Legislation

Competition Law

Constitutional Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 6031 of 1997

PSL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOR.
	v.
SIMPLOT AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON and CHERNOV, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22-26 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 February 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 7

---

Courts – Practice - Pleadings – Amendment to pleadings – Amendment claiming breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 after expiration of limitation period in s.82(2) of the Act – Whether inconsistency for purpose of s.109 of the Constitution between s.82(2) and s.34 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 and r.36.01(6) of the Rules of Court – Whether s.82(2) provides “otherwise” for the purposes of s.79(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 – Whether repeal of Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic.) by Fair Trading Act 1999 abolished potential claims through breach of s.11 of Fair Trading Act 1985 – Whether potential claim for breach of s.11 of Fair Trading Act 1985 prosecutes “accrued rights” at time of its repeal for the purposes of s.14(2)(e) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 – Constitution Act, s.109, Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss.39(2), 79, Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss.82(1)(2), Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic.) s.34, Rules of Court, r.36.01(6).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	N.J. Young Q.C. and Mr. D.H. Denton S.C.	Freehills
For the Respondent	Dr. G. Griffith Q.C. and S.G.E. McLeish	Minter Ellison

ORMISTON, J.A.:

Having had the advantage of reading the judgment of Chernov, J.A. in draft form, I am in agreement with the conclusions he has reached and his reasons for reaching them, subject only to this, that if there be thought to be any difference in the reasoning in this case and that in my judgment in Agtrack N.T. Pty Ltd. v. Hatfield[1], I would adhere to what I have said in that judgment. For myself, however, I do not perceive there to be any relevant inconsistency in reasoning.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

[1][2003] VSCA 6.

The appeal

This is an appeal against the decision of a judge of the Supreme Court made on 5 November 2001 giving leave to the respondent to amend its pleadings so as to allege pre-contractual breaches by the appellants of ss.52 and 59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth.) (“the Act”) and s.11 of the Fair Trading Act 1985[2] (“the Fair Trading Act”) in circumstances where the cause of action arising out of such breaches had accrued outside the three year limitation period fixed by s.82(2) of the Act [3]. Before the primary judge, the respondent successfully relied on s.34 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (“the Limitation Act”) and rule 36.01(6) of Chapter I of the Rules of Court[4] in support of its claim that the amendment should be allowed notwithstanding that the limitation period may have expired. The appellants sought leave to appeal against the decision on the principal bases that his Honour should have held…

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 PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSCA 7
Case: [2003] VSCA 7
Decision Date: 28 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

PSL Industries Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to amend its pleadings against Simplot Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant, to include a claim for breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The amendment was proposed after the limitation period had expired, raising issues regarding the application of statutory provisions and their consistency with constitutional and other legislative frameworks. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the amendment was permissible and if certain statutory provisions were consistent with each other.

The court's analysis focused on several legal issues, including whether there was an inconsistency between the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, as well as the Rules of Court. The court also examined whether s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 provided an "otherwise" exception for the purposes of s.79(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903. Additionally, the court considered if the repeal of the Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic.) by the Fair Trading Act 1999 abolished potential claims for breach of s.11 of the earlier Act, and whether such claims constituted "accrued rights" under s.14(2)(e) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.

In its decision, the court determined that the amendment to the pleadings was not permissible due to the expiration of the limitation period. The court found that there was no inconsistency between s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and s.34 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, nor between these provisions and r.36.01(6) of the Rules of Court. The court also held that s.82(2) did not provide an "otherwise" exception under s.79(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903. Furthermore, the court concluded that the repeal of the Fair Trading Act 1985 did not abolish potential claims for breach of s.11, as these claims did not constitute "accrued rights" under s.14(2)(e) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's proposed amendment to the pleadings was dismissed, and the claim for breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 was not allowed. The court's findings on the inconsistency between statutory provisions and the interpretation of accrued rights under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 were pivotal in reaching this conclusion.

Orders