James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWCA 76

James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWCA 76

The first respondent did not supply the refrigerator within s 75AD. It performed work on the goods as a licensee on another party's premises, never acquired title to or possession of the refrigerator or panels, had no dominion over them, and did not deliver or re-deliver the refrigerator when its work was complete. It supplied services under a contract for work and labour, not goods, so s 75AD did not apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Personal Injuries Action Under S 75 AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Appeal From a District Court Judgment for the Defendant
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manufacturer Liability for Defective Goods' 'supply of Goods' 'bailment and Possession' 'statutory Liability Under S 75 AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)']
['tort' 'trade Practices' 'consumer Protection'] ['manufacturer Liability for Defective Goods' 'supply of Goods' 'bailment and Possession' 'statutory Liability Under S 75 AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)']

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 in a Personal Injuries Action Under S 75 AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Appeal From a District Court Judgment for the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent supplied the refrigerator within the meaning of s 75AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' "Whether fixing stainless steel panels to a refrigerator on another party's premises, without acquiring title to or possession of the goods and without delivering or re-delivering them, constituted a supply of goods."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent did not supply the refrigerator within s 75AD. It performed work on the goods as a licensee on another party's premises, never acquired title to or possession of the refrigerator or panels, had no dominion over them, and did not deliver or re-deliver the refrigerator when its work was complete. It supplied services under a contract for work and labour, not goods, so s 75AD did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal." 'The second and third respondents have liberty to apply.']