Legal Research
Cases
The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 17 March 1986 49 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: THE HEATING CENTRE PTY. LIMITED
And: TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
No. G 104 of 1985
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart J.
Wilcox J.
Pincus J.

CATCHWORDS

Trade practices - resale price maintenance - standard of proof - whether supplier made it known that goods would not be supplied unless the acquirer agreed not to sell the goods below a specified price within para. 96(3)(a) of the Act - meaning of "inducing", "specified" and "supplied" within para. 96(3)(b) - consideration of application of sub-s. 96(4) to sub-s. 96(3) - application of para. 4F(b) in determining whether there has been a withholding of supply within sub-para. 96(3)(d)(ii) - whether the supplier used "a statement of a price" within para. 96(3)(f) - consideration of trial Judge's acceptance of certain evidence.

Trade Practices Act 1974: ss. 5, 48, 76, 78, 79. sub-s. 96(4). paras. 4F(b), 96(3)(a), 96(3)(b), 96(3)(f). sub-para. 96(3)(d)(ii).

Briginshaw v. Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R. 336

Helton v. Allen (1940) 63 C.L.R. 691

Rejfek v. McElroy (1965) 112 C.L.R. 517

Cooper v. Slade (1958) 6 H.L.C. 746

T.P.C. v Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty. Limited (No. 3) 44 F.L.R. 149

Warren v. Coombes (1979) 142 C.L.R. 531

Brunskill v. Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co. Limited (1985) 62 A.L.R. 53

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 17:3:1986

ORDER

Leave be granted to Brian Butterfield to appeal out of time against order 10 of the orders made herein by Beaumont J. on 18 April 1985.

The said orders be varied so as to substitute:

(a) for the figure "$15,000.00" in order 3 the figure "$12,500.00";

(b) for the figure "$10,000.00" in order 4 the figure "7,500.00"; and

(c) for the figure "$40,000.00" in order 5 the figure "$35,000.00".

Otherwise the appeals be dismissed.

The appellant, The Heating Centre Pty. Limited, pay to the respondent one-half of its costs of the appeal of The Heating Centre Pty. Limited.

JUDGE1

We have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Pincus J.. We agree with those reasons in respect of most of the matters discussed by his Honour but there are some matters about which we have reached different conclusions and in relation to which we will express our own views. It may be taken that we agree with Pincus J. as to all matters not referred to by us.

Golden Decors

Pincus J. is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the June 1982 conversation between Mr. Chapple of Golden Decors and Mr. Brian Butterfield, who controlled the affairs of the appellant, fell within para. 96(3)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The trial Judge found that the conversation of June 1982 between Mr. Butterfield and Mr. Chapple included the following, taken from the evidence of Mr. Chapple:

"To the best of my recollection, Brian said, 'we are getting tired of the problem we are having in Wagga with the discounting'. I replied it was very difficult to…

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 The Heating Centre Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission 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: [1986] FCA 72
Decision Date: 17 MARCH 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Heating Centre Pty Ltd, a company in the business of selling and distributing heating products, was involved in a legal dispute with the Trade Practices Commission. The Commission alleged that the appellant had engaged in resale price maintenance, a practice that was prohibited under the Trade Practices Act. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant had contravened the Act by making it known that it would not supply goods unless the acquirer agreed not to sell the goods below a specified price. Additionally, the court had to interpret terms such as "inducing", "specified" and "supplied" within the Act, and consider the application of certain subsections and paragraphs to the facts of the case.

The court found that the appellant had indeed engaged in resale price maintenance, as it had made it known that it would not supply goods unless the acquirer agreed not to sell the goods below a specified price. The court also held that the appellant had used a statement of a price in its dealings with the acquirers. Furthermore, the court concluded that the trial judge had correctly accepted certain evidence in the case. In light of these findings, the court varied certain monetary penalties imposed on the appellant and granted leave for an appeal out of time. The appellant was also ordered to pay one-half of the respondent's costs of the appeal.

The Federal Court's decision in this case clarified the scope of certain provisions within the Trade Practices Act, and provided guidance on the interpretation of key terms. The outcome of the case emphasised the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Act, and the consequences of contravening its provisions. The court's decision also highlighted the need for businesses to carefully consider their pricing and supply agreements to ensure they do not engage in prohibited practices.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave be granted to Brian Butterfield to appeal out of time against order 10 of the orders made herein by Beaumont J. on 18 April 1985.

The said orders be varied so as to substitute:

(a) for the figure "$15,000.00" in order 3 the figure "$12,500.00";

(b) for the figure "$10,000.00" in order 4 the figure "7,500.00"; and

Otherwise the appeals be dismissed.

The appellant, The Heating Centre Pty. Limited, pay to the respondent one-half of its costs of the appeal of The Heating Centre Pty. Limited.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.