Bilal v Ampol Australia [2025] FedCFamC2G 1724
The idea that the law does not concern itself with trifling matters is frequently invoked – see Episode 33. This case (at [91-93]) illustrates 3 things – (1) The law as stated by Hill J in Farnell remains correct10. (2) The principle is a rule of thumb rather than a rule of law. (3) Whether it applies in an interpretation situation depends on text, context and purpose. Appeal courts have also endorsed the principle11.
This leaves for attention precisely when de minimis will apply. In Bilal, it was held not to apply as breach of the relevant obligation involved a ‘completed contravention’ of the statute12. iTip – de minimis is about context & judgment rather than assumption.
This principle is from Episode 127 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
10 Farnell(1996) 142 ALR 322 (324-327), Pearce 10th ed [4.45].
11 Redbubble[2024] FCAFC 15 [111-115], Sydney Metro [2023] NSWCA 200 [54].
12 s 536(1) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).