Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

[1981] FCA 232

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

)

NEW SOUTH WALES D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y ) N o . G 1 5 2 of 1981

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL from a s ingle Judge of

the Federal C o u r t of A u s t r a l i a

BETWEEN :

BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED

A p p e l l a n t

AND :	-
TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

R e s p o n d e n t

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:	B o w e n	C . J . ,	D e a n e	and	E l l i co t t
JJ.

DATE O F ORDER: 27 N o v e m b e r 1981

WHERE MADE: Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. B r a m b l e s H o l d i n g s L i m i t e d pay to the Trade Practices

C o m m i s s i o n i t s costs of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)	No. G152 of 1981
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN :

BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED

Appellant

-	AND:
TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Respondent

CORAM: Bowen C.J., Deane and Ellicott JJ.

27 November 1981.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against an interlocutory judgment and

order of Frank1 J. dated 23 October 1981 refusing to order

further and proper answers to .interrogatories delivered by

Brambles Holdings Limited (the second defendant) to the Trade

Practices Commission (the plaintiff) in proceedings No.	G44 of
1978.

The main question which has been argued is whether the

answers to interrogatories numbered 10 and 46, which have been

- 2 -

taken to be representative of a number of interrogatories

which are said to have been inadequately answered, are

objectionable.

We do not think that that question fell to be resolved by

Franki J. by reference to any single decisive principle.

Rather it fell to be determined by his Honour in the course of

exercising a discretion by reference to a number of relevant

principles and considerations. As we read his ~udgment his

Honour so determined it. We are not persuaded that Franki J.

fell into any error in respect of any of the matters raised in

the appeal. To the contrary we are In general agreement with

the conclusions which he reached and the reasons which	he
advanced for those conclusions.

This being an appeal on a matter of practice and

procedure, it is in our view unnecessary and undesirable that

we say more than that. In adopting that course we would wish

to make clear that we are not unappreciative of the force and

care of Mr. Sweeney’s argument on behalf of Brambles Holdings

Limited. We would add that what we have said does not

necessarily involve complete approval of the form of the

answers.

We would dismiss the appeal with costs. The orders of the

Court will be:

1. That the appeal be dismissed.

2. That Brambles Holdings Limited pay to the Trade Practices