Shell Company of Australia Limited v Chenoa Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal between The Shell Company of Australia (applicant) and Chenoa Pty Ltd (respondent). The dispute concerned Shell's attempt to terminate Chenoa's possession of a service station located on Footscray Road. Chenoa contended that Shell was prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act, as they were franchisees protected by the Act. Shell argued that the Act did not apply to Chenoa's premises due to the provisions of section 6(1D) of the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether section 6(1D) of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act operated to exclude the application of the Act to the premises in question, thereby permitting Shell to terminate Chenoa's possession. This involved determining the proper interpretation and application of section 6(1D) in the context of the broader legislative scheme, particularly in relation to the lodging of information under section 11 of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act.

The court was required to consider the specific grounds on which Shell had lost in the Full Court, which Mr. Shaw described as a "submerged rock" rather than the "killer point" identified by the Full Court. Shell's submission was that a particular point, which emerged during the Full Court proceedings, was not a decisive factor. This point related to a letter and form lodged by Shell under section 11 of the Sites Act, which predated the introduction of section 6(1D). Shell argued that the form was lodged for purposes unrelated to section 6(1D) and that its contents did not preclude them from relying on section 6(1D) to terminate Chenoa's possession.