Borden Australia Pty Ltd v Monsanto Australia Ltd

[1983] FCA 428

IN THE FEDERAL CCURT OF AUSTRALlA	)
1

NEW SOUTH	KALES	D I b T R 1 C I REGISTRY	)	Eo.	G 1 1 4 of	l%%
1
GENERAL	DIVISIOb	)

A p p l i c a n t

AND :	MONSANTO AUSTRALIA
LIMITED

R e s p o n a e n t

CGRAM: L o c k h a r t J .

1 5 A p r i l , 1963

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

LOCKHART J . E o r d e n A u s t r a l i a P t y . L i K i t e p , the a p p l i c a n t ,

s e e k s a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g F i o n s a n t o A u s t r a l i a L i m i t e d , t h e

r e s p o n d e n t , t o a n s w e r c e r t a i n i n t e r r c g a t o r i e s w h i c h t h e

r e s p o n d e n t has a e c l i n e d t o a n s w e r .

B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i r s i n a i s F u t e 1

t h e r e s p o n d e n t e a c h m & n u f a c t u r e s a n d s e l . 1 ~ c h e m i c a l s a n d

o t h e r goods, i n c l u d i n g a p r o d u c t known a s p h e n o l i c r e s i n .

T h e r s s p o n a e n t a l so manufactures a p r c d u c t p h e n o l w h l c h i s

u s e d i n t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f p h e n o l i c r e s i n .

2.

The a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e s p o n u e n t i s engaging

i n t h e p r o s c r i b e d p r a c t i c e o f p r i c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n t r a r y

t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s . 4 9 of the Trade Prac t ices Act 1 9 7 4

( " t h e A c t " ) in t h a t i n i t s t r a d e o r commerce it i s

discriminating between purchasers of goods of l ike g rade and

q u a l i t y i n r e l a t ion t o t he p r i ces cha rged fo r t he goods , &nu

t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s of s u c h m a g n i t u d e o r i s o f such a

r e c u r r i n g or s y s t e m a t i c c h a r a c t e r t h a t it has o r i s l i k e l y t o

h a v e t h e e f f e c t of subs t an t i a l ly l e s sen ing compe t i t i on i n a

m a r k e t f o r g o o d s , b e i n g a marke t i n w h i c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t

suppl ies those goods .

The a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s i n e f f e c t , as 1 understand i t ,

t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t i s c h a r g i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t h i g h e r p r i c e s

for the p u r c h a s e r s , purchase of phenol than the respondent charges other

a n d t h a t i n a l l t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s a

breach of s . 4 9 r e s u l t s . The a p p l i c a n t also, C S I understand

i t , b a s e s i t s case upon an a l leged breach of s . 4 6 of the Act

b y the respondent re la t ing to mcnopolishtion. The respondent

d e n i e s	t h e a l l e g a t i o n .
The app l i can t sough t admin i s t e r t o scm~. 123

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g some i n con f idence , pu r suan t t o

e z r l i e r d i r e c t i o n s of t h i s Court . I n fhc t , the ccmbir ,a t ion

of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i s such t h a t , i n r e a l i t y , t h e apy; l icant

seeks t o adminis te r m m y mCrE than 1 2 3 .

3 .

The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s b u t o b j e c t s t o a n s w e r i n g t h o s e t h e s u b j e c t sesponaent answered has msny the of

of

t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e me. The r e s p o n d e n t r e l i e d c n a n

a f f idavi t o f Douglas Edward Reid, a company secre ta ry , sworn

1 5 A p r i l 1963, i n support of i t s oppos i t i on .

Before t u r n i n g t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i n

d i s p u t e 1 should say t h a t i t i s o f t en necessa ry when d e a l i n g

wi th app l i ca t i cns fo r l eave to in t e r roga te wh ich a re d i spu ted

t o d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s of r e l evance o f t he i n t e r roga to r i e s . I t

i s , of c o u r s e , a l w a y s d i f f i c u l t t o d c c i d e q u e s t i o n s of

r e l e v a n c e a t t h i s s t a g e of any proceeding. Not i n f r e q u e n t l y

m a t t e r s

t h a t

a r e

t h o u g h t

n o t

t o

b

e

r e l e v a n t

a t

a

s tage

such

a s

t h i s

a r e p roceeds , shown l a t e r a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , a s i t

t o be r e l e v a n t , and v i c e v e r s a .

Accordingly, a n y views 1 may forrr. a t t h i s s t a g e on t h e

ques t io r , o f r e l evance a re those tha t I forn because 1 t h ink I

have to i n o r d e r t o d i s p o s e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ; b u t t h e y a r e ,

of course, based only on my understanding of t h e case a s i t

i s a t t h e p r e s e n t and a r e , i n any event , pr ima iacie viehs a s

of necess i ty they m u s t be .

1 t u r n t h e n t o t h e i n t e r r o g s t o r i e s i n a i s F u t e ar:c w i l l

d e a l w i t h them i n numer i ca l o rde r wh ich - fo l lows a l s o t h e

o r d e r o f c o u n s e l ' S s u b n ! i s s i c n s . 'ihe i n t e r z o g a t c r i e s a r e

4.

contained i n the "Verif ied Statement i n Answer t o

I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s " f i l e d b y the respondent on 2 2 Piarch 1 9 8 3 .

1

There i s a l s o a separa te "Ver i f ied S ta tement i n Answer t o

I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s " f i l e d by the respondent i n a sealed envelope

marked	c o n f i d e n t i a l	p u r s u a n t	t o	E a r l i e r	d i r e c t i o n s	of	t h e
C o u r t .

C o n f i d e n t i a l n t e r r o g a t o r y 7 was which one t h e

respondent answered i n p a r t b u t dec l ined t o answer i n whole

on the g round tha t to answer it fu r the r t han it d i d would be

oppres s ive . l n t he cour se of discussion between myself and

c o u n s e l i t i s now c l e a r t h a t t h e r e k i l l b e n o d i s p u t e i n

r e l a t i o n t o the answer t o tha t ques t ion and the respondent i s

proposing t o f i l e a f u r t h e r a f f i d a v i t t o complete i t s answer.

Therefore , the appl icant does n o t p r e s s now f o r a n o r d e r t h a t

the respondent be r e q u i r e d a n s w e r t o t h a t c o n f i d e n t i a l

i n t e r r o g a t o r y 7 .

T u r n i n g t c i n t t h e r r c g z t o r i e s n o t t h a t a r e

c o n f i d e n t i a l , i n t e r r o g a t o r y 9 asks:-

"Has the kespondent a t any t ime durir ,5 each

of t h e s a i d p e r i o d s made s a l e s of phenol

for expor t? I f so, t h a t i n r e sFec t of each

s u c h s a l e : -

5 .

( i ) t h e p r i c e a t which t h e s a l e was made;

( i i ) t h e b a s i s of c a l c y l a t i o n of such

p r i c e a n d t h e d e t a i l s of t h e i t e m s

c o n s t i t u t i n g i t s c a l c u l a t i o n :

(iii) the amcclnt o f t he p ro f i t e l emen t o f

each such pr ice:

( i v ) the amount of e a c h s u c h p r i c e t h a t

represented	a	r e t u r n	on	f i x e d c a p i t a l
costs ;

( v ) the amount of e a c h s u c h p r i c e t h a t

r e p r e s e n t e d t h e r e c o v e r y o f d i r e c t

c o s t s of manufacture.

The exFress ion "sa id per iods" i s used throughout the

in t e r roga to r i e s and i t s meaning i s def ined a s inc luding some

f i v e p e r i o d s ,	t h e	f i r s t p e r i o d	commencing	1	J u l y	1 5 7 6	and	t h e
p e r i o d	f i f t h

e n d i n g i n t e r r o g z t o r i e s , d a t e t h e of answering the

which i s 8 March 19b3.

, I

The r e sponden t ob jec t s t o answer ing t he i n t e r r cgs to ry

y, ! o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t d o e s n o t r e l a t e t c a n y m a t t e r i n

n i,

't.; q u e s t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i n t h a t i t relhtes o n l y t o

marke ts ou ts ide Aus t ra l ia which the resFondent asser t s a re

n o t r e l e v a n t t o S . 4 E of o t h e i s s u e s i n t h i s Frccee.ciny having regard

the Act. The a p p l i c a n t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e

i n t e r r o g a t o r y does r e l a t e to relcvant issues L r c a u s e

6 .

notwi ths tanding the p rovis ions of s.4E, i f diSCriKinatiOn i s

p r a c t i s e a i n r e l a t i o n t o p r i c e by the respondent i n i t s s a l e s

of pheno l t o t he app l i can t i n A u s t r a l i a y e t t he r e spond tn t

sells t o o v e r s e a s c u s t o m e r s a t l o w e r p r i c e s s o t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a n t i s paying more for the phenol purchased by it than

a r e t h o s e o v e r s e a s p u r c h a s e r s , t h i s i s a ma t t e r which i s s a i d

t o b pleadings e r e l e v a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i s s u e s t e n d e r e d b y t h e

based on s .49 . This i n c l u d e s t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e

p r i c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s such t ha t i t i s l i k e l y t o h a v e t h e

e f f e c t o f s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s e n i n g c o m p e t i t i o n i n t h e r e l e v a n t

market for goods, that market b e i n g the Aus t ra l ian marke t .

I t i s i n my prima facie view only markets i n A u s t r a l i a

t h a t a r e t h e s u b j e c t of t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s imposed by s .49 so

f a r as i s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s case, b u t i n any event there i s n o

evidence before m e t h a t o v e r s e a s s a l e s would have any e f f e c t

s u c h a s t h a t a l l e g e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n m a r k e t .

A s I s a i d e a r l i e r i n c e r t a i n g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , t h e v i e w l

form a s t o r e l e v a n c e a t t h i s s t a g e i s n o t t o be t r e & t e d a s

- necessa r i ly be ing the f ina l v i ew i n due course when t h e case

r e a c h e s i t s f i n a l h e a r i n g ; k u t ' f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s a n d t h e

absence of evidence I h a v e r e f e r r e d t o , 1 &m n o t s a t i s f i e d

t h a t t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y d o e s s e @ k a n s b e r s t o m a t t e r s r e l e v a n t

t o any issue between t h e p a r t i e s ar,a accord ingly 1 u i sa l low

1

t h a t i n t e r r o g a t c r y . \ I t i s corr;n;on ground tha t hav ing

d i sa l lowed	t ha t ,	I	w i l l also Gisa l low	in t e r roga to r i e s	1 3	and
1 4 .

7 .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 1 7 asks:-

" h h a t i s t h e ' R A P s t u d y g r o u p ' ? I d e n t i f y

t h e p e r s o n or b o d i e s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e s a m e

a n d s a y w h a t p r o p o s a l s or r e p o r t s it h a s

made. T o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h s u c h F r o p o s a l s

or r e p o r t s a r e i n w r i t i n g i a e n t i f y t h e

w r i t i n g a n d s a y w h e r e i t may be i n s p e c t e d .

To t h e x t e n t t o w h i c h s u c h p r o p o s a l s o r

r e p o r t s a r e v e r b a l s t a t e be tween wha t

p e r s o n s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s occurred a n d g i v e

t h e i r s u b s t a n c e . I'

I n my v i e w t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y does n o t r e l a t e t o a n y

m a t t e r i n i s s u e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s so f a r a s I c a n g l e a n

f r o m t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y i t s e l f . The " M P

s t u d y g r o u p " , a s i t i s c a l l e d , may o r may n o t h a v e a n y t h i n g

w h a t e v e r t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n do w i t h q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o p r i c e

such a s i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e t a k e n p l a c e i n t h i s

c a s e , a n d t h e r e is s i m F l y n o t h i n g b e f o r e ne which conv i f i ces

m e t h a t t h e r e i s any r e1ev .ance to* a n y i s s u e b y t h e mat ters

ra i sed i n t h e i n t e r r o g s t c r y . A c c o r d i n g l y , 1 d i s a l l o w t h a t

i n t e r r o g a t o r y .

8.

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 2 1 a s k s : -

"Does a n y r e l a t e d o r p a r e n t c o m p a n y o f t h e

R e s p o n d e n t h a v e t o t h e knowledge o r b e l i e f of

t h e k e s p o n d e n t t r a n s f e r p r i c i n g p o l i c y o r a n y of i t s o f f i c e r s a

i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ?

I f so, s t a t e the p o l i c y .

I t h a s n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t

w h a t e v e r t r a n s f e r p r i c i n g p o l i c y t h e r e n a y e x i s t i n t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s o n t h e p a r t o f t h e p a r e n t o r a n y r e l a t e d

company of the r e s p o n d e n t , i t has a n y r e l e v a n c e t o a n y of t h e

i s s u e s i n t h i s case and I d i s a l l o w t h a t i n t e r r o g s t o r y . I t i s

common g r o u n d a c c o r d i n g l y t h a t I w o u l a d i sa l low

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s 22 a n d 2 3 .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 24 a s k s :-

" H a s a n y t h e e f f e c t u p o n o f f i c e r o f the k e s p o n u e n t c o n s i d t - r e u

competitors of t h e R e s p o n d e n t

0.f t h e t r a n s f e r p r i c i n g . p o l i c y t h e o f

k e s p o n d e n t ? If so, i d e n t i f y e a c h s u c h

o f f i c e r , and s t a t e whe the r s u c h c c n s i d e r a t i o n

was w r i t t e n o r v e r b a l . If b r i t t e n , i d e n t i f y

t h e w r i t i n g a s a y d where i t may L e

i n s p e c t e d . If v e r b a l , s t a t e b e t w e e n wha t

p e r s o n s the c o n v e r s a t i c n s c o n s t i t u t i n c j t h e

same occurred ancl q i v e t h e i r s u b s t a n c e . "

9 .

The respondent ob jec ts to answer ing t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y

o n the g round tha t i t i s s a i d t o be oppress ive . I n paragraph

2 of h i s a f f i d a v i t Plr keid has sworn:-

"The Responuent says lnterrogzitcry 24 i s

oppressive because answer to i t would

n e c e s s i t a t e mak ing inqui r ies every o f

Employee of the R spondent who has been

i n v o l v e d i n the marketing of phenol and

p h e n o l i c r e s i n o v e r t h e l a s t 4CI y e a r s , a s

phenol was f i r s t manufactured i n A u s t r a l i a b y

Respondent the i n o r about 1 9 4 2 . The

employees who may have cons idered the mat te rs

r a i s e d i n t h i s I n t e r r o g a t o r y would have

includec Production Managers, Sales Fianaqers,

husine,ss Directors and Commercial D i r e c t o r s

many of xhom I b e l i e v e a r e nox dead o r hav t

l e f t h e employ of the Respondent. A t t h e

present t ime th a re pproximEtely 20

employees f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e above ca tegor ies

who a r e employec a t va r ious l oca t ions

throughout Aus t ra l ia b y t h e Respondent. "

liven h i t h o u t h e b e n e f i t ~f t h e sworr. s t a t e n ; t n t ~i E,r

Reid I wculd h z v e r e j e c t e d th i s in t e r r cya tc ry because on i t s

f a c e it S ~ : E ~ E t c me it h , ~ t ; l U r equ i r e t1;e rrsl;cnCe'.: ?;c_ ;;S €

in an cL-l;rcssict tE .ck , b c t b i t l . t k , c i t r . c F i t ct k,is cc.ictr .ct i

am s a t i s f i e 6 t h a t t h e o b j e c t i c n i s v , , e l l t a h c c Z R G t k L t

i n t e r r q a t o r y s h o u l d be d i s s l l cwed .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y S i a sks : -

" I f the answer to ar,y p a r t of the Freceding

I n t e r r o g a t o r y	i s	a f f i r n a t i v e	g i v e	f u l l
d e t a i l s of :-

( i ) t h e

l e v e l p h e n o l i c r e s i n of c o s t o r c o s t s below hich

was sold:

( i i ) the date of each such s a l e ;

(iii)	t h e	p e r s o n	t o	whom each such sale cr-as
made ;

( i v ) t h e s a l e p r i c e ;

( v ) t h e q u a n t i t y solci;

( v i )	o f f i c e r	t h e	or	c f f i c e r s	o f	t h e
Kespondent who: -
( a )	c o n s i d e r e d ,

( b)	reccmnended,
(c)	deciueu,

upon each such sale.

11.

Mr Reid has a l s o s w o r n r e l a t i o n i n t G t h i s

i n t e r r o g a t o r y : -

"As t o i n t e r r o g a t o r y 3 1 L s a y t h a t t h e r e a r e

1 7 i n d i v i d u a l g r a d e s of p h e n o l i c r e s i n w h i c h

a r e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t

i n t e r r o g a t o r y . T h e s e g r a d e s a r e : PP1256,

PP1161, PPl.211, PP1234, PP1253, PP1145,

PP159, P1027, PP1062, PP1065, PP1169,

PP1244, PP775, P P 1 1 5 6 , PP1245, PP1249,

P P 1 0 7 1 . To a n s w e r t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y a n y

f u r t h e r w o u l d i n v o l v e e x t r a c t i n g the i n v o i c e s

and order f o r m s f o r each of t h e sale of t h e s e

r e s i n s s i n c e 1 J u l y 197b. T h e s e i n v o i c e s a re

n o t k e p t s e p a r a t e l y from i n v o i c e s a n d order

forms r e l a t i n g t o t h e s a l e of o t h e r p h e n o l i c

r e s i n s w h i c h a r e r e f e r r e d t o i n t he ansrwer t o

i n t e r r o g a t o r y 2 5 , a n d f u r t h e r t h e i n v o i c e s

and o rde r f o r m s a r e loca t ed i n many l o c a t i o n s

t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a . I z n t i c i p a t e t h t i t t o

e x t r a c t t h e r e l e v a n t i n v o i c e s . a n d order f o r m s .

w o u l d i n v o l v e 1 7 emFloyees of t h e r e s p o n c e n t

work ing a t o t a l o f n o less t h a n 5 number of

days . I '

12.

F o r t h o s e r e a s o n s it i s s a i d t h a t t o a n s w e r the

i n t e r r o g a t o r y w o u l d be o p p r e s s i v e a n d v e x a t i o u s a n d i t d o e s

n o t r e l a t e t o a n y i s s u e b e t h e e n t h e p a r t i e s . l n my v iew it

w o u l d be o p p r e s s i v e t o r e q u i r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o a n s w e r t h a t

i n t e r r o g a t o r y a n d 1 a c c o r d i n g l y r e j e c t i t .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 5 2 i s much t h e same a s i n t e r r o g a t o r y 31,

s a v e t h a t	&r k e i d	h a s a l s o	s w o r n	i n r e l a t i o n	t o	i n t e r r o g a t o r y
3 2 : -

" A s t o i n t e r r o g s t o r y n u m b e r 3 2 1 s a y t h a t

before t h e p e r s o n s who were i n v o l v e d i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s a l e s c a n be i d e n t i f i e d it a o u l d

b e n e c e s s a r y t o e x t r a c t t h e i n v o i c e s a n d

o rde r f o r m s r e f e r r e d to i n t h e p r e c e d i n g

p a r a g r a p h e r e o f . T h e r e a f t e r i t w o u l d b e

n e c e s s a r y t o i d e n t i f y the sales

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a n d m a r k e t i n g p e r s o n n e l who

were i n v o l v e d i n e a c h p a r t i c u l a r s a l e s i n c e

1 9 7 8 . I a n t i c i p a t e t h a t some of these

p e r s o n s may n o t s t i l l be emE;lcyed b y t h e

R e s p o n d e n t a n d t h e i r w h e r e a b o u t s may n o t be

known. In l9b2 there were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 16

sa l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a

i n v o l v e d g e n e r a l l y i n tY2e s a l e cf- t h e s e

r e s i n s . 'I

1 3 .

1 i n f a c t r e g a r d p a r a g r a p h s 3 and 4 of tJ,r R e i a ' s

a f f i d a v i t , which relate to i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s 31 and 32

r e s p e c t i v e l y , as r e a l l y c o v e r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e , same

ground so t h a t what he swears i n t hose pa rag raphs apF l i e s t o

b o t h i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s 31 and 3 2 . I r e j e c t i n t e r r o g c t o r y 3 2 .

I n t e r r o g a t c r y 3 3 m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e r e j e c t e d .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 46 asks: -

"Has there been any occasion c u r i n g each of

t h e s a i d p e r i o d s o n which the Respondent has

not pr iced phenol on an i m p o r t p a r i t y b a s i s ?

If s o , occasion and say, g i v e t h e f u l l p a r t i c u l a r s of each such

( i ) why impor t par i ty was not maintained;

( i i ) w h e t h e r a n y o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e of t h e

Respondent had any conversation with any

person d u r i n g each of t h e s a i d p e r i o d s

concerning whether import parity shoulci

be main ta ined and , i f so, i d e n t i f y t h e

p e r s o n s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n e a c h s u c h

conversa t ion and	s t a t e the	substance of
each such conversat	ion."

14.

The respondent ob jec ts t o answer ing t ha t i n t e r roga to ry

on t h e ground t h a t : -

"On n o occas ion r e l evan t t o t he issues r a i s e a

by these proceedings: b u t i n some i n s t a n c e s

s a l e s were f f ec t ed t o New Farm, Yorkshire

a n d o t h e r s i n which those companies were

g ran ted xpor t r eba te s s ince t he sub jec t

m a t t e r o f t h e s a l e was t o b e e x p o r t e d b y

those companies ."

The o b j e c t i o n i n substance i s t h e same a s i t was i n t h e

case of i n t e r r o g a t o r y 9 and I w o u l d r e j e c t i n t e r r o g a t o r y 46

f o r t h e same reasons save for a separate argument advanced by

counse l fo r t he app l i can t namely , t ha t i n t e r roga to ry 46 seeks

t o i n t e r r o g a t e t h e r e s p o n d e n t a s t o s a l e s made b y i t t o

companies i n the	Aus t ra l ian	marke t	b u t	fo r	expor t	b y	t hose
companies.

I n my view, t h i s does no t es tab l i sh ar,y r e l e v a t

d i f f e rence fo r . t he pu rpose th i s o f app l i ca t ion , arid 1

t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t i n t e r r o g z t o r y 4c . Again, i shoulc; s a y t k a t

whether i n d u e c o u r s e a t t h e t r i a l t h a t a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t of

c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t i s shown t o be good i s a n o t h e r

m a t t e r , b u t a t t h i s s t a g e 1 do not th ink re levance has been

shown. I should acid t o t h a t , n o r has evidence been zacIc1ce.c

1 5 .

which w o u l d t end t o show t h a t even if t e c h n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t

t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d . I t f o l l o w s t h a t

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s 4 5 and 4 b w i l l l ikewise be re jec tea .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4 8 asks:-

" I f t h e anscver t o any p a r t of the preceaing

I n t e r r o g a t o r y i s i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e , i d e n t i f y

t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each such conversat ion

and. g i v e t h e s b s t a n c e t h e r e o f and s t a t e t h e

da t e t he reo f ."

Object ion is t a k e n t o a n s w e r i n g t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y on

t h e ground t h a t i t i s oppressive and vexat ious. E;r Reia has

sworn i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t i n paragraph 5:

Respondent "The says I n t e r r o g a t o r y i n r e l a t i o n t o

4 8 t h a t i t i s oppres s ive

because to answer i t would n e c e s s i t a t e making

e n q u i r i e s of every employee of the kespondent

who h a s a t a n y t i m e , n o t o n l y d u r i n g t h e

p e r i o d s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e A p p l i c a n t ' s

In t e r roga to r i e s d i scuss ions any haa

c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s

I n t e r r o g a t o r y . T h e Ftesponuent has been

manufacturing phenol s i n c e 1 9 4 2 and t h e

employees w h o may h a v e d i scussed cr

16.

cons ide red ma t t e r s t he r a i ed i n this

I n t e r r o g a t o r y would be i m p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e

b u t I b e l i e v e many hundreds, some of whom a r e

dead others

nd employed by the of whom a r e n o longer

Respondent. A t t h e p r e s e n t

t i m e t h e r e w o u l d be approximately 4 3 number

of employees of the Respondent t o whom

enqui r ies could be made a n s b e r t o this

I n t e r r o g a t o r y and these employees are located

v a t r i o u s

f f i c e s t h roughou t Aus t r a l i a . 'I of Respondent the

I n my op in ion the ob jec t ion t o t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y b e i n g

answered i s a l s o w e l l taken on t h e g round of oppression, and

I would n o t a l low i t .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 49 r a i s e s t h e same p 0 i r . t a s i n t e r r o g a t o r y

4 6 , and t h e r e f o r e I w i l l not a l low i t .

A s i n t e r r o g a t o r y S(; i s consequent ia l on i n t e r r o g a t o r y

4 9 , I w i l l not a l low i t .

I come then t o i n t e r r o g a t o r y 5L. it a s k s : -

*

1 7 .

"Eas	the	Kesponaent	a t any	t i m E : -
J

( i ) macie a dumping ccmplaint i n r e s p e c t of

s t y r e n e monomer impor te rs ;

( i i ) styre e informed any mcnomer

manufacturer of i t s i n t e n t i o n t o make a

dumping complaint i n r e s p e c t of i t . "

The Respondent answered:-

"The ReSpOnaent ob jec t s answer ing t o t h i s

inker roga tory g r the on tha t und e

in t e r roga to ry does n o t r e l a t e t o any matter

i n ques t ion be tween the pa r t i e s . " ,

A n o b j e c t i o n i s t a k e n t o t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y on t he

g r o u n d t h a t i t d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o a n i s s u e b e t w e e n t h e

p a r t i e s . I t i s s a i d t h a t t h e re levance of th i s i n t e r r c g a t o r y

i s tha t a l though the p roduct s tyref ie moncmer i s h c i f f e r e n t

the never the less to phenol or p h e c o l i c r e s i n ,

product p roducts

the respondent i s s a i d t o have followed the same

p rosc r ibed p rac t i ces i n r e l a t i o n t o s t y r e n e mcnomer as i t has

done w i t h r e s p e c t o p h e n o l . I am n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h i s

i n t e r r o g a t o r y r e l a t e s t o a n y r e l evan t ma t t e r i n t he c a s e ana

I d i sa l low i t .

lb.

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 6 1 asks : -

" D u r i n g each of t h e s a i d p e r i o d s : -

( i ) has there been a market for t h e s a l e of

phenol i n A u s t r a l i a ;

( i i) f o r what p u r p s e s was pheno l su i t ab le ;

( i i i) w e r e a n y o t h e r p r o d u c t s ( a n d , i f s o ,

w h i c h ) s u i t a b l e f o r t h e same use o r

s u b s t i t u t a b l e o r o t h e r w i s e c o m p e t i t i v e

w i t h phenol?"

The respondent rep l ied :

( i ) & (iii) the Respondent objects t o

answer ing these in te r roga tor ies o n t h e

g round t ha t t hey a r e oppres s ive and

vexa t ious i n t h a t t h e y r e l a t e t o m a t t e r s

of law;

( i i ) Phenol was s u i t a b l e f o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g

phenol ic r e s i n s , a s p i r i n , r u b b e r

chemica ls , herb ic ides and phenol ic

. moulaing cornFounds .

The resFondent ob jec ts answer i r ig to in te r roqa tor ies

61( i) and (iii) on the ground. t h a t h e y a r e o p p r e s s i v e and.

v r x s t i c u s and r e l a t e t o n a t t e r s of l z b . I t c c r s n o t c b j c c t

19.

t o answer ing in te r roga tory 6 1 ( i i) . 1 have a l i t t le

d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the l anguage of in te r roga tory b l ( i i i ) , b u t I

t h i n k it i s f a i r t h a t i t should be read as i f i t s a i c : -

" h e r e a n y o t h e r p r o d u c t s , a n d i f so wh ich ,

s u i t a b l e f o r t h e same u s e a s o r s u b s t i t u t a b l e

for or o therwise comFet i t ive w i t h phenol?"

I n my v iew the in te r roga tory i s not one that should be

a l lowed , a s i t a s k s t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o i n t e r p r e t a d i f f i c u l t

q u e s t i o n w h i c h i t s h o u l d n o t h a v e t o do. I n a c i d i t i o n i t

r e l a t e s t o a ques t ion of law o r f a c t and l a w .

Whether there has been a re levant marke t for t h e sale of

a commodity fo r t he pu rposes the o f A c t seems t o me

e s s e n t i a l l y a mat te r for the Cour t to de te rmine . kha t the

f a c t s a r e which go t o e s t a b l i s h w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a r e l e v a n t

market , of cour se , may i n appropr i a t e ca ses be p rcpe r ly t he

s u b j e c t o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i n g power b u t t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y is

n o t F e r m i s s i h l e . l n t e r r o g a t o r i e s 62 and 6 3 wou ld l i k e h i s e be

not a l lowed.

I n t e r r o g a t c r y 65 hsks : -

" D u r i n g each of the sa id pe r iods : -

2C.

was t h e r e a marke t for phenol ic res in i n

A u s t r a l i a f o r u s e i n the manufac ture o f

p a r t i c l E b c a r d ;

was t h e r e a marke t for phenol ic res in i n

A u s t r a l i a f o r u s e in ex ter ior bonding of

f l o o r i n g p a r t i c l e b o a r d ;

(iii) was any product o ther than .phenol ic

r e s in s u i t a b l e f o r u s e i n t h e

manufacture of f l o o r i n g p a r t i c l e b o a r d

and, i f so, what product o r products :

( i v ) has any product o ther than phenol ic

r e s i n s u i t a b l e f o r u s e i n t h e e x t e r i o r

bonding of f loo r ing pa r t i c l eboa rd and ,

i f so, what product or p roduc t s . "

The respondent answered:

( i ) and ( i i ) The Respondent ob jec ts to

answer ing these in te r roga tor ies on t h e

ground t h a t they a r e o p p r e s s i v e and

vexa t ious i n t h a t t h e y r e l a t e t c m a t t e r s

of law.

(iii) y e s , mimosa t a n n i n a n d ~ b l i n r i n e u r e a

formaldehyde (KUE) r e s i n .

( i v ) Yes, mirncsa tannin and melamine urea

fornaldehyde (MUF') r e s i n ."

21.

Object ion i s t a k e n t o a n s a e r i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r y 6 5 ( i ) and

( i i ) on t h e ground t h a t t h e y a r e o p p r e s s i v e and vexat ious and

r e l a t e t o m a t t e r s of law. I n my v i e a , t h i s o b j e c t i o n i s well

founded. I t does ask ques t ions r equ i r ing t he r e sponden t o

determine whether there was a marke t for phenol ic res in i n

A u s t r a l i a , o r f o r u s e i n c e r t a i n p r o c e s s e s . Por t h e reasons

I have i n t e r r o g a t o r y given i n r e l a t i o n i n t e r r o g a t o r y t 61 t h i s

l i k e w i s e i s d i sa l lowea . So i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y 66

a i sa l lowea .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y 6 7 asks: -

“ A t any (and which) times during each of t h e

s a i d p e r i o d s have the Appl icant and he

Respondent been competitors i n t h e s a l e o f :

( i ) pheno l i c r e s in :

( i i ) phenol ic us res in for i n t h e

manufacture of p a r t i c l e b o a r a o r f l o o r i n g

p a r t i c l e b o a r a ( s t a t i n g w h i c h ) ;

(iii) pheno l i c r e s in fo r USE i n t h e x t e r n a l

bonding of flooring FartiClebOara.

2 2 .

The respondent answered:-

"The R spondent ob jec t s answer ing t o t h i s

i n t e r roga to ry the on g round t ha t i t i s

oppres s ive and vexat ious i n t h a t it r e l a t e s

t o a ques t ion of law . I '

Object ion i s taken to answer ing tha t on the g round tha t

i t i s o p p r e s s i v e a n d v e x a t i o u s i n t h a t i t r e l a t e s t o a

q u e s t i o n of l a w n a m e l y , t h a t i t r e q u i r e s t h e p a r t y b e i n g

i n t e r r o g a t e d t o s a y w h e t h e r d u r i n g c e r t a i n t i m e s t h e p a r t i e s

have been competitors i n t h e s a l e of t h e v a r i o u s p r o d m t s .

That, i n my v i e w , d o e s r a i s e a ques t ion of L a w o r of mixed

f a c t and law and whether they have been competi tors or not i s

f o r the Court t o d e c i d e . 'The i n t e r r o g a t o r y i n my v i e b i s n o t

p e r m i s s i b l e . Nor w i l l i n t e r r o g a t o r y 68 be allowed as i t i s

consequent ia l o n 6 7 .

That dea ls I t h i n k w i t h a l l t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h a t a r e

i n d i spu te . Accord ing ly , a s t o a l l t h e i n t e r r c g a t o r i e s t o

w h i c h o b j e c t i o n was t a k e n , 1 d i s a l l c w t h e m . k h a t a b o u t

c o s t S?

A s t o cos t s counse l for t h e a ~ p l i c a ~ t sougkLt i r , r e p l y t o

suppor t the i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on t h e basis t h a t t h e y r e l a t e d t o

so much of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c a s e a s concerned s.4b cf the Act.

The argument was s t a t e d b u t not developed. l do not t h i n k i t

r i g h t t h a t i n those c i rcumstances I should have to go through

each of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a g a i n t o d e a l k i t h them i n t h e

l i g h t of s . 4 6 w i thou t t he bene f i t o f de t a i l ed a rgumen t .

A s t o c o s t s , t h e r e s p n d e n t h a s a l m c s t e n t i r e l y

succeeded i n i t s r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n s w e r s t o

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . The p r o p e r c r d e r f o r c o s t s i s t h a t t h e

app l i can t shou ld pay the r e sponden t ' s cos t s of the lvotice of

Notion of 8 A p r i l 1563 i n s o f a r a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e o r d e r s

sought i n paragraph 1. Otherwise, there should be no o rde r

for c o s t s of tha t mot ion .