Barton, Edwina Alice v Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 206

Barton, Edwina Alice v Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 206

Croner Trading Pty Ltd made false representations under s.53(a) and (c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by affixing labels to goods, such that when the goods bearing those labels were offered for sale to the public, those acts amounted to actionable representations at the relevant time. As those retail displays and sales occurred within the limitation period, the prosecutions are not statute-barred. The consent to prosecute was validly given by a person authorised as required under s.163(4)(b) TPA.

Parties
Prosecutor: Edwina Alice Barton; Defendant: Croner Trading Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution (summary Offences, Trade Practices) / Special Case Stated Pursuant to S.25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976; Questions as to Liability, Statutory Limitation, and Ministerial Consent
Outcome
All questions in the Special Case answered in favour of the Prosecutor. Defendant convicted of the offences. Proceedings remitted for sentencing. Defendant ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
False Representations as to Goods, Time of Committing Offence Under TPA S.53, Limitation Period for Prosecution, Ministerial Consent to Prosecution, Delegation of Ministerial Powers
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Statutory Interpretation Criminal Law False Representations as to Goods Time of Committing Offence Under TPA S.53 Limitation Period for Prosecution Ministerial Consent to Prosecution +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwina Alice Barton

Prosecutor

Croner Trading Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution (summary Offences, Trade Practices) / Special Case Stated Pursuant to S.25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976; Questions as to Liability, Statutory Limitation, and Ministerial Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant made false representations in connection with the supply of goods contrary to s.53(a) and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974?
  2. 2 When does a relevant 'representation' occur in law under s.53 TPA: at time of manufacture, of wholesale sale, or upon retail display/sale?
  3. 3 Are prosecutions for the offences time-barred by s.21 of the Crimes Act 1914, having regard to when the representations were made?

Ratio Decidendi

Croner Trading Pty Ltd made false representations under s.53(a) and (c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by affixing labels to goods, such that when the goods bearing those labels were offered for sale to the public, those acts amounted to actionable representations at the relevant time. As those retail displays and sales occurred within the limitation period, the prosecutions are not statute-barred. The consent to prosecute was validly given by a person authorised as required under s.163(4)(b) TPA.

Court Disposition

All questions in the Special Case answered in favour of the Prosecutor. Defendant convicted of the offences. Proceedings remitted for sentencing. Defendant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • Questions in Special Case answered: (1) Yes (document is valid authorisation); (2) Yes (defendant committed offences at relevant times); (3) No (prosecutions are not time-barred).
  • Proceedings remitted to Beaumont J. for entry of convictions and penalty.