In a dispute concerning the determination of a geographical indication being a region to be known as "King Valley", there were appeals from the decision of the Administrative of Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) by King Valley Vignerons, which sought to have a larger area included in the region than the area that was the subject of the Committee's final determination, and by Whitlands Vignerons, who sought to have a Whitlands Plateaux area (which was included in the King region) classified as a different region.
Australia's laws concerning the determination of geographical indications (contained in the Australian Wine and Brandy Act) give effect to an agreement Australia and the European Community (EC) concerning the sale of wine. Dowsett J pointed out that the relevant legislation needs to be determined in accordance with Australian law and not with reference to the EC agreement. There are significant differences between European approaches to characterising indications and those in Australia. In particular, the European controlled "appellation" can involve many controls and restrictions on viticultural practices but Australian laws concerning the origin of wines do not seek to create a specific nexus between origin and quality. Factors considered in determining what defines a region in Australia generally have regard to grape growing attributes but viticultural practices are not prescribed.
A region is a tract of land that is "discrete and homogeneous in its grape growing attributes". An issue in the appeal was whether the recognition of differences means a region is not sufficiently homogeneous.
In its decision, the Tribunal had accepted that there identifiable geographic differences between the Whitlands Plateaux area on the one hand and the balance of the area on the other, and that there are differences in grapes grown, in growing techniques, in climate and in soils between the two areas although, at margins, such distinctions would be difficult to draw. Nevertheless, taking into account all relevant factors, it was considered that the relevant area comprised asingle region and the Federal Court on appeal accepted that the degree of homogeneity required is a matter for determination by the Committee.
On the issue of whether adequate reasons for the decision had been provided, the Court pointed out that there is a degree of subjective assessment involved in determining relevant geographical boundaries, that the relevant criteria had been considered, and that the ultimate decision may rest on a combination of factors and inferences. In criminal law, it has been said, "a circumstantial case is not composed of links in a chain, one following the other. It is more like the strands of a rope, each supporting the others" and it was stated that the Tribunal's decision was not the final link in a chain but "the inductive outcome of a consideration of all relevant matters".
There was a lack of support for certain arguments made on appeal in the evidence originally submitted, which demonstrates the need to present a strong and complete case in relation to the initial interim determination, or alteration of an interim determination, since there is a significant degree of subjective assessment in making a geographical determination, which is likely to make it difficult to overturn such decisions on appeal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.