R v Credit Tribunal; Ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corporation (Australia) [1977] HCA 34

R v Credit Tribunal; Ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corporation (Australia) [1977] HCA 34

There is no direct inconsistency between the Consumer Credit Act 1972-1973 (S.A.) and the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): the 13th Schedule notice is not misleading within the meaning of s. 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act, and the Commonwealth Act (by s. 75) does not intend to be exhaustive of the field. Therefore, no State provision is rendered inoperative by s. 109 of the Constitution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Constitutional Writ and Related Proceedings / High Court Judgment and Orders After Removal From Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Declarations made that there is no inconsistency; GMAC's application against South Australia dismissed with costs; matters remitted to Supreme Court of South Australia; costs as ordered.
Legal Topics
['section 109 Inconsistency' 'concurrent Operation of State and Commonwealth Laws' 'consumer Protection Notices' 'misleading Conduct Under Trade Practices Act']
['constitutional Law' 'trade Practices' 'consumer Law'] ['section 109 Inconsistency' 'concurrent Operation of State and Commonwealth Laws' 'consumer Protection Notices' 'misleading Conduct Under Trade Practices Act']

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

Application for Constitutional Writ and Related Proceedings / High Court Judgment and Orders After Removal From Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is inconsistency between provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1972-1973 (S.A.) and the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), particularly s. 52 (1) and Div. 2 of Pt V' 'Whether the 13th Schedule notice required by State law is misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s. 52 (1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'The operation of s. 75 of the Trade Practices Act regarding the concurrent operation of State and Commonwealth laws']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no direct inconsistency between the Consumer Credit Act 1972-1973 (S.A.) and the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): the 13th Schedule notice is not misleading within the meaning of s. 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act, and the Commonwealth Act (by s. 75) does not intend to be exhaustive of the field. Therefore, no State provision is rendered inoperative by s. 109 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Declarations made that there is no inconsistency; GMAC's application against South Australia dismissed with costs; matters remitted to Supreme Court of South Australia; costs as ordered.

Orders

  • ['Declare no inconsistency between s. 52(1) and Div 2 Pt V Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Consumer Credit Act 1972-1973 (S.A.)' 'Remit matter to the Supreme Court of South Australia' "Prosecutor/plaintiff (GMAC) to pay respondent's/defendants' costs in the High Court" 'Application against South Australia refused...