Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Monier Roofing Ltd

[1995] FCA 1062

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )NO. SG 51   of  1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:      AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND
  CONSUMER COMMISSION
  Applicant

AND:         MONIER ROOFING LIMITED
       First Respondent

BORAL HOLLOSTONE MASONRY (South
  Aust.) PTY LTD
  Second Respondent

HALLETT ROOFING SERVICES PTY LTD
  Third Respondent

DONALD ROSS McGLASHAN
  Fourth Respondent

TERRENCE EDWARD CARRIGAN
  Fifth Respondent

RAYMOND JAMES BROWNBILL
  Sixth Respondent

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ROOF TILERS
  ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
  Seventh Respondent

4 DECEMBER 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This is a proceeding instituted in the original

jurisdiction of the Court in South Australia, but transferred

to this registry. The proceeding is against a number of

respondents ‑ corporate and natural persons ‑ for recovery of

pecuniary penalties pursuant to B. 76 of the Trade Practices

Act 1974 ('the Act').     The proceedings relate to

contraventions of s6. 45(2)(a) and 45(2)(b) of the Act.

The parties have been engaged for some time in

discussions with a view to reaching, if they could, and as

they have, agreement as to the disposition of the matter.

Joint submissions have been prepared by the parties' legal

advisers, they are placed with the papers, and I have read

them. The parties have also reached agreement, subject to the

court's concurrence, on what the appropriate orders should be.

The principles to be applied in cases of this kind appear

in the cases which I collated in Trade Practices Commission v

Hymix Industries Pty Limited (1995) ATPR 41‑369. which

have been subsequently decided have followed the approach

mentioned there.

I do not refer to the facts; they are fully set out in

the joint submissions of the parties.

I think the agreement that has been reached is broadly in

accord with what the Court would have done, based on the facts

as they are set out in the submissions. So, I propose to make

orders in accordance with the short minutes which have been

handed up by counsel and solicitors, initialled by me and

placed with the papers. Accordingly, the Court makes orders

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as set out in the minutes.

I certify that this and the preceding one
(1) pages are a true copy of the reasons
for judgment herein of the Honourable
Justice Lockhart.

Associate:
      Dated:  4 December  1995

Counsel for the Applicant             Mr R A Finkelstein QC
  Mr G H Brandis

Solicitors for the Applicant           Australian Government
  Solicitor

Counsel for the First and             Mr R M Smith
Fourth Respondents

Solicitors for the First              Clayton Utz
and Fourth Respondents

Counsel for the Second and Fifth
Respondents  Mr M H Tobias QC

Solicitors for the Second and          Blake Dawson Waldron
Fifth Respondents

Solicitors for Third and              Cowell Clarke
Sixth Respondents

Date of Hearing  4 December 1995

Date of Judgment  4 December 1995