GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672

Plaintiff: Michael Barnes
Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO”

Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES
BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010

Background Facts:
Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store named Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd for him to use to unblock a pipe in the shower recess. Mr. Barnes, kneeling down, poured hot water to the drain and immediately sprinkled the caustic soda as advised by a friend. The mixture of hot water …show more content…
The parties agreed quantum in the sum of $106,000 as an award in favor of Michael Barnes. In addition, orders were made in respect of packaging or labeling of products in the future. Included in the orders are the increased warning regarding the wearing of rubber gloves and goggles during and after use of the product and warning against using of product directly in a confined space such as a drain. The judgment demonstrates the importance of careful packaging and marketing. Under Part VA, it’s not necessary that the product malfunction in order to be defective. The critical issue is safety and the objective expectations of the community.
GLENDALE appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court but the appeal was dismissed principally on the ground that the court was right in relation to Part VA.
The ACCC was successful in its claim in this case.
ANALYSIS:
Glendale was proven to be negligent because of insufficient warning in the label of its product that resulted to damage Barnes physically. Under section 75AC of the Act, the lack of sufficient warning on how to handle a caustic soda was a “defect” within its meaning.
The label of the product was found defective within the meaning of section 75AC where goods are defective when they do not provide the degree of safety which persons generally are entitled to expect. In