Dunlop Olympic Ltd v. Trade Practices Commission [1982] FCA 31

Dunlop Olympic Ltd v. Trade Practices Commission [1982] FCA 31

The appeal was dismissed because the fact that compliance with a s.155 notice might expose the recipients to penalty did not render the notice invalid or excuse compliance; and the challenged requirements were all within the permissible scope of s.155 and the company's knowledge or control, and were adequately connected to the investigation specified in the notice.

Parties
Appellant: Dunlop Olympic Limited; Appellant: K.G. Norrish; Respondent: Trade Practices Commission; Respondent: Ronald Solley Gilbert
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Validity of S.155 Notices, Self Incrimination in Regulatory Investigations, Requirements to Furnish Information and Produce Documents Under the Trade Practices Act, Scope of Information a Company Can Be Compelled to Provide
Trade Practices Validity of S.155 Notices Self Incrimination in Regulatory Investigations Requirements to Furnish Information and Produce Documents Under the Trade Practices Act Scope of Information a Company Can Be Compelled to Provide

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunlop Olympic Limited

Appellant

K.G. Norrish

Appellant

Trade Practices Commission

Respondent

Ronald Solley Gilbert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a recipient of a s.155 notice under the Trade Practices Act can be required to furnish information or produce documents if it might tend to expose them to a penalty for contravention of the Act
  2. 2 Whether information acquired by a representative of a company must be acquired in the representative's capacity as such for the company to be required to disclose it
  3. 3 Whether a s.155 notice unlawfully requires the recipient to act as a 'detective'

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the fact that compliance with a s.155 notice might expose the recipients to penalty did not render the notice invalid or excuse compliance; and the challenged requirements were all within the permissible scope of s.155 and the company's knowledge or control, and were adequately connected to the investigation specified in the notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.