Adams, R.E. v Eta Foods Ltd [1987] FCA 618

Adams, R.E. v Eta Foods Ltd [1987] FCA 618

ETA Foods Limited established on the balance of probabilities that the contraventions were due to reasonable mistake, as it reasonably relied on a long-standing supplier, applied reasonable checks and procedures for meat quality (except species), and at the material time, it was not industry practice nor was there readily available technology or knowledge to detect species substitution of beef with sheep. Therefore, ETA was entitled to the statutory defence under s.85(1)(a), and the prosecutions were dismissed; it was not necessary for ETA to establish reasonable precautions to prevent such a mistake where acting reasonably entailed no notice of species substitution risk.

Parties
Prosecutor: Ronald Edward Adams; Defendant: ETA Foods Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment After Joint Trial of Five Related Prosecutions
Outcome
Prosecutions dismissed – defence of reasonable mistake under s.85(1)(a) made out
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Representations, Defence of Reasonable Mistake, Labelling and Food Standards, Evidentiary Admissions, Supplier Liability
Trade Practices Criminal Law False or Misleading Representations Defence of Reasonable Mistake Labelling and Food Standards Evidentiary Admissions Supplier Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Edward Adams

Prosecutor

ETA Foods Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment After Joint Trial of Five Related Prosecutions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ETA Foods Limited falsely represented pies as beef under s.53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defences under s.85(1) (reasonable mistake, reasonable reliance, act/default of another) of the Trade Practices Act were available to ETA
  3. 3 Whether evidentiary admissions in criminal proceedings were appropriate and admissible

Ratio Decidendi

ETA Foods Limited established on the balance of probabilities that the contraventions were due to reasonable mistake, as it reasonably relied on a long-standing supplier, applied reasonable checks and procedures for meat quality (except species), and at the material time, it was not industry practice nor was there readily available technology or knowledge to detect species substitution of beef with sheep. Therefore, ETA was entitled to the statutory defence under s.85(1)(a), and the prosecutions were dismissed; it was not necessary for ETA to establish reasonable precautions to prevent such a mistake where acting reasonably entailed no notice of species substitution risk.

Court Disposition

Prosecutions dismissed – defence of reasonable mistake under s.85(1)(a) made out

Orders

  • The summons in each of matters G.78, G.79, G.80, G.81 and G.82 of 1987 is dismissed.