Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17

Case name & citation: Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17; (1990) 169 CLR 594; 64 ALJR 293; 92 ALR 193

• Court: High Court of Australia
• Judgment Date: 3 May 1990
• Legal Issue: Scope of Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – Whether misleading or deceptive conduct occurred “in trade or commerce.”

Facts of Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson

1. The appellant, Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd, was a company constructing a building in Sydney.

2. The respondent, Grant Nelson, was an employee working at the site. While removing a grate covering an air-conditioning shaft, he fell and suffered injuries.

3. Nelson alleged that his injuries were caused by misleading advice from his foreman, who incorrectly stated that the grates were securely bolted.

4. He brought a claim under Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), asserting that the company’s conduct was misleading or deceptive.

Procedural History

•            The Federal Court initially ruled in favour of Nelson, holding that his allegations fell within the scope of Section 52.

•            Concrete Constructions appealed to the High Court, arguing that the conduct did not occur “in trade or commerce” and was therefore outside the scope of Section 52.

Key Legal Issue

Does the misleading statement by the foreman to the employee constitute conduct “in trade or commerce” under Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act?

Decision in Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson

The High Court allowed the appeal, ruling in favour of Concrete Constructions.

Reasoning

1. Interpretation of “In Trade or Commerce”:

Section 52 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct “in trade or commerce.” The Court held that this phrase limits the section’s scope to conduct with a trading or commercial character, particularly dealings between businesses and consumers or suppliers. Internal communications within a corporation, such as between an employer and an employee, do not satisfy this requirement.

2. Application to the Case:

The misleading statement was an internal workplace instruction unrelated to any commercial or trading activity. As such, the conduct was not “in trade or commerce” and fell outside the scope of Section 52.

3. Purpose of Section 52:

The Court emphasized that the section’s primary purpose is to protect consumers and regulate misleading conduct in commercial transactions, not to govern internal corporate practices.

Case Outcome

The High Court answered the preliminary question in the negative, ruling that the facts did not give rise to a cause of action under Section 52. The appeal was allowed, and Nelson’s claim under the Trade Practices Act was dismissed.

Significance

This case clarified the meaning of “in trade or commerce” under Section 52, limiting its application to external commercial dealings and excluding internal corporate conduct. It remains a key authority on the scope of misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian trade practices law.

References:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/17.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM SALE OF GOODS/CONSUMER LAW:

• A Quick Summary of Priest v Last (1903) Case
• Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co (1921)
• Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd (1990)