Chief Executive Officer of Customs v W & D Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 460

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v W & D Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 460

The statutory definition of 'robotic machine' in s 4(b)(i) of the Bounty (Machine Tools and Robots) Act 1985 is to be construed, in accordance with industry usage, as requiring a machine to be capable of handling each object by simultaneous movements in two or more axes. The respondent's palletisers and depalletisers do not satisfy this requirement and are therefore not 'robotic machines' under the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
application granted; Tribunal decision set aside; delegate's decision affirmed; declaration made; costs order for applicant
Legal Topics
['definition of Robotic Machine Under Bounty (machine Tools and Robots) Act 1985' 'application of Trade Usage in Statutory Construction' 'questions of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['definition of Robotic Machine Under Bounty (machine Tools and Robots) Act 1985' 'application of Trade Usage in Statutory Construction' 'questions of Law Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act']

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

Appeal / On Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Proper construction of the definition of 'robotic machine' in s 4 of the Bounty (Machine Tools and Robots) Act 1985" "Whether the respondent's palletisers and depalletisers qualify as robotic machines under that Act" 'The extent to which trade usage/industry meaning should influence statutory construction']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory definition of 'robotic machine' in s 4(b)(i) of the Bounty (Machine Tools and Robots) Act 1985 is to be construed, in accordance with industry usage, as requiring a machine to be capable of handling each object by simultaneous movements in two or more axes. The respondent's palletisers and depalletisers do not satisfy this requirement and are therefore not 'robotic machines' under the Act.

Court Disposition

application granted; Tribunal decision set aside; delegate's decision affirmed; declaration made; costs order for applicant

Orders

  • ['That the application be granted.' 'That the decision of the Tribunal be set aside.' 'That the decision of the delegate of the applicant be affirmed.' "That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application." "Declaration: The respondent's palletisers and depalletisers are not 'robotic machines' as...