Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services v Hua Yang Australia International Trading and Investment Pty Limited and Huadi Bi [2016] NSWSC 1380

Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Finance and Services v Hua Yang Australia International Trading and Investment Pty Limited and Huadi Bi [2016] NSWSC 1380

The offences were serious because the defendants sold or offered for sale declared electrical articles without model approval under a statutory scheme directed to public safety, the items were so substandard that approval would never have been granted, and use of at least the red and blue chargers exposed consumers to severe or fatal electric shock. The first defendant had no compliance system, and the second defendant, as sole director and shareholder, abandoned her responsibility to ensure compliance. The offending was aggravated because it was motivated by financial gain and committed without regard for public safety. Although the defendants were entitled to a 25% discount for early...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Proceedings for Offences Against the Electricity (consumer Safety) Act 2004 (nsw) / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
The first defendant was fined $3,000 for each of two offences, the second defendant was fined $9,000 for each of two offences, and both defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs of $25,000.
Legal Topics
['selling Declared Electrical Articles Without Model Approval' 'executive Liability of Director for Corporate Offences' 'public Safety Risks From Unapproved Electrical Chargers and Travel Adaptor' 'general Deterrence' 'financial Gain and Disregard for Public Safety' 'assessment of Fines and Costs']
['criminal Law' 'consumer Safety' 'electrical Product Regulation' 'sentencing'] ['selling Declared Electrical Articles Without Model Approval' 'executive Liability of Director for Corporate Offences' 'public Safety Risks From Unapproved Electrical Chargers and Travel Adaptor' 'general Deterrence' 'financial Gain and Disregard for Public Safety' 'assessment of Fines and Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Summary Proceedings for Offences Against the Electricity (consumer Safety) Act 2004 (nsw) / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalties should be imposed on the first defendant for selling declared electrical articles without model approval contrary to s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Electricity (Consumer Safety) Act 2004 (NSW).' 'What penalties should be imposed on the second defendant as sole director for executive liability offences under s 45(2) of the Electricity (Consumer Safety) Act 2004 (NSW).' 'Whether evidence concerning a yellow charger allegedly connected with a death could be used in sentencing, and for what limited purpose.' 'Whether aggravating factors included offending for financial gain and without regard for public safety.' 'Whether mitigating factors included early guilty pleas, absence of prior convictions, prospects of rehabilitation, likelihood of reoffending, remorse, financial circumstances, and the possibility that proceedings could have been brought in the Local Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious because the defendants sold or offered for sale declared electrical articles without model approval under a statutory scheme directed to public safety, the items were so substandard that approval would never have been granted, and use of at least the red and blue chargers exposed consumers to severe or fatal electric shock. The first defendant had no compliance system, and the second defendant, as sole director and shareholder, abandoned her responsibility to ensure compliance. The offending was aggravated because it was motivated by financial gain and committed without regard for public safety. Although the defendants were entitled to a 25% discount for early...

Court Disposition

The first defendant was fined $3,000 for each of two offences, the second defendant was fined $9,000 for each of two offences, and both defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs of $25,000.

Orders

  • ['In respect of the offence particularised in paragraph 1a of the Summons, the first defendant is fined the sum of $3,000.00.' 'In respect of the offence particularised in paragraph 1b of the Summons, the first defendant is fined the sum of $3,000.00.' 'In respect of the offence particularised in paragraph 3a of the...