Barton, E.A. v. Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 149

Barton, E.A. v. Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 149

It was found beyond reasonable doubt that the toy kangaroo was not displayed for sale before Monday, 2 August 1982, based on Mr. Manfredotti's instructions and the absence of any reasonable hypothesis to the contrary. Leave to re-open was refused because no sufficient ground or exceptional circumstance was advanced. The facts did not support the defendant's alternative suggestions as to the date of display.

Parties
Prosecutor: Edwina Alice Barton; Defendant: Croner Trading Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution (trade Practices) / Stated Case/special Case to Full Federal Court
Outcome
Leave to re-open refused. Special case findings made in favour of prosecution version as to date of display.
Legal Topics
Stated Case, Time Limits for Prosecution, Application to Re Open Case, Inference From Circumstances, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Trade Practices Law Stated Case Time Limits for Prosecution Application to Re Open Case Inference From Circumstances Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwina Alice Barton

Prosecutor

Croner Trading Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution (trade Practices) / Stated Case/special Case to Full Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecutor should have leave to re-open on hearing of application to state case
  2. 2 Whether inference can be drawn that goods were displayed contrary to instructions
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution was commenced within statutory time limit

Ratio Decidendi

It was found beyond reasonable doubt that the toy kangaroo was not displayed for sale before Monday, 2 August 1982, based on Mr. Manfredotti's instructions and the absence of any reasonable hypothesis to the contrary. Leave to re-open was refused because no sufficient ground or exceptional circumstance was advanced. The facts did not support the defendant's alternative suggestions as to the date of display.

Court Disposition

Leave to re-open refused. Special case findings made in favour of prosecution version as to date of display.

Orders

  • Leave for prosecution to re-open denied
  • Special case to be stated to Full Court as per draft in schedule