ZENDEL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (t/as GLAD PRODUCTS OF AUSTRALIA) & ANOR v FC of T & ANOR

Judges: Lockhart J

Beaumont J

Gummow J

Court:
Full Federal Court

Judgment date: Judgment handed down 25 February 1993

Beaumont J

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

As Lockhart J. has said, the first issue is whether the goods in question are piece-goods. The point, I think, is one of impression. On behalf of the appellants, reference is made to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of ``piece- goods'' as ``goods or fabrics woven in lengths suitable for retail sale by the usual linear measure''. It is then said, on behalf of the appellants, that the subject goods fall within the definition of ``piece-goods'' in the item in question because, first, they are cut in pieces from a continuous roll; second, they are sold in or by recognised lengths and, thirdly, the lengths in which the goods are sold are customarily accepted.

I have difficulty in accepting this analysis. As the dictionary definitions show, the term ``piece-goods'' is a technical term. That is to say, it is really a term of art, and it has not been shown, in my opinion, that Hill J. erred in his approach to this question.

As to the second issue, I also agree with Lockhart J. It should be noted that the term ``accessories'' in the item in question appears in the context of an item which is stated to be ``parts, fittings and accessories''. If the subject goods had been designed exclusively for use in conjunction with a refrigerator or an oven or even if, perhaps, the goods in question had actually been used exclusively in conjunction with an oven or a refrigerator, it could be that the conclusion contended for by the appellants may have been open. But, in the present case, there is no evidence and, indeed, no suggestion, that these goods were either designed exclusively for that purpose or, in practice, used exclusively for that purpose. Again, I am of the view that it has not been shown that Hill J. erred in his approach to this question.


ATC 4026

I would, for those reasons, dismiss the appeal.


This information is provided by CCH Australia Limited Link opens in new window. View the disclaimer and notice of copyright.