Trade Practices Commission v the Heating Centre Ltd & anor [1984] FCA 449

Trade Practices Commission v the Heating Centre Ltd & anor [1984] FCA 449

The Court found that the respondents engaged in resale price maintenance by refusing to supply, attempting to induce, and inducing retailers not to sell or advertise goods below the specified retail price, contrary to sections 48 and 96 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The second respondent was knowingly concerned and aided and abetted the contraventions. The evidence established both the refusal to supply and proscribed reason as substantial and operative in each relevant instance.

Parties
Applicant: Trade Practices Commission; First Respondent: The Heating Centre Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Brian Butterfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicant partially succeeds; contraventions declared; costs reserved; proceedings adjourned for pecuniary penalties and other relief.
Legal Topics
Resale Price Maintenance, Onus of Proof, Agent Provocateur, Admissibility of Evidence
Trade Practices Resale Price Maintenance Onus of Proof Agent Provocateur Admissibility of Evidence

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Applicant

The Heating Centre Pty. Limited

First Respondent

Brian Butterfield

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in resale price maintenance contrary to s.48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether refusal to supply for reasons related to discounted retail prices constitutes contravention of s.96(3) of the Act
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of evidence obtained via agent provocateur

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents engaged in resale price maintenance by refusing to supply, attempting to induce, and inducing retailers not to sell or advertise goods below the specified retail price, contrary to sections 48 and 96 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The second respondent was knowingly concerned and aided and abetted the contraventions. The evidence established both the refusal to supply and proscribed reason as substantial and operative in each relevant instance.

Court Disposition

Applicant partially succeeds; contraventions declared; costs reserved; proceedings adjourned for pecuniary penalties and other relief.

Orders

  • Declare that the first respondent engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance in respect of the Kent Tile Fire in contravention of s.48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in the respects alleged in paras. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the Statement of Claim.
  • Declare that the second respondent aided and abetted and was knowingly concerned in the said contraventions.