Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Insurance Brokers Association of Australia Ltd

Trade

P rac t i ces -

In te r im in junc t lon

- Published

statements

a l le&ed to be misleading and deceptive

- Pr inc ip les appl icable

t o inter lm	injunct lons.	Trade	Pract ices	Act 1974, ss.52 and
80(2)

No. G63 of 1977.

CORAM:

Bowen, C. J.

Sydney, 2nd November, 1977.

TN THE i\lAT'rER of the Trade Practices

Act 1974

Cross-Cl21 rE?nts

O R D E R

JUC'JE Kf;I<IVG OFJIER:

Bowen C . J .

DATE

OFCER: I 2nd

November,

1977.

IWERE 1'lnDE :

Sydney :

THE COURT ormms THAT:

1. Order that

the

Insurance

Brokers Association of h s t r a l l a

and

James TlcInerney be

r e s t r a ined

pending

the determina tlon

these proceedings

o r f u r t h e r o r d e r from publ-i-shing any

s t a te~nent

t o !.he

e f f e c t t h a t t h e

Conmerclal Bank

o f

Austl,al L D

Llmited i s involved

i n an entry

o r a t tempted enkry Into t l~e

insurance market whlch

i s i l l e g a l o r any

S tatclnenii t o t he

e€ fec t t ha t

the Commercial Bank of Austra11.a Limited 1s usill::

- 2 -

i t s branch managers

t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e

on customers t o

arrange

insurance

wlth i t s subs id ia ry , C.B3:A.

Insurance

Services

Llmited.

Order

that

Spec ia l i s t Nevs le t te rs P ty .

Limlked.

restrained pendlng the determlnat lon

these proceedings

o r fu r the r o rde r

Zrom

publishing

any

such staCements

PROVIDFD

tha t

this

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

Newsletters

Pty.

Limlted €rom pxbl lshing a f a i r r e p o r t

any p a r t o€

these current proceedings.

3 .

Order

t h e c o s t s

a l l p a r t i e s

these proceedings

be cos t s i n the cause .

Cross-Cl aimants

Cross-Defendants

Bowen C. J.	CORUT:	t
1
2nd November, 1977.
l
!

T h i s is a motion €or injunctions brought

the Commercial Bank of Australia Limited and C.B.A.

Insurance

Services Limited against the Insurance Brokers

Assocm tion

Aus t ra l l s , P r i cc

tcliell Pty. Limited, James McInerney and

Special ls t Newslet ters

P ty .

Llmited.

S t a h n g tne 1nal;ter

broadly,

t he

appl icants seek

orders

r e s t r a in ing the r e sponden t s

from

r . ,

I .

- 2 -

engaging i n conduct i n contraventlon 01 the provlsloas:oP

s.52

the Trade Pract ices

Act

1974.

In par t icu lar ,

they

compl2m

t h a t

the

respondents have published

mi;rue

a l l e g a t i o n s t o

followlng

effect

the

-.-

( a ) t h a t t h e

Rank

i s involved i n an

attempted eii try

into

the insurance market, which

is i l l e g a l ;

(b)

t h a t t h e

Bank

is usmg i t s branch managers

t o e x e r t

pressure on customers to a r range insurance	with	i ts
subsidlary;

(c )

tha t confidelztlal

informatj

the hands of the

B a d <

i s being used otherwise than

i n a

proper manner.

In	the not ice of motion f i led, injunc-t ior ,s

were

a l so sough t t o r e s t r a in

the

respondents from engaging

conduct In cont ravent ion of ,SS .45D a ~ d

55h o€ the Act,

but T c

the course

the hear ing, these ceased to

m z t t e r s i n i s s u e

and r e l i a n c e was

placed upon

S. 52.

.2he circumstances

i n which

t h e n o t i c e

o f

motion has been broughl; are that the Insurance Brokers Associ.atlon

of Australia and P r l c e N l t c h e l l Pty. Llmited issued a writ

summons

and

statement o f

c l a m a g a i n s t t h e

Commerci a1 Bznk

01 Australia Limited and

C.B.A.

Insurance Servlces Limitcd

t h e 22nd

August

1977 a l l e g l n g that t h e Commerclal

Bank

of Austrzl la

Limited

had

engaged

i n the prac t ice of exc lus ive dea l ing

c o n t r a r y t o

s.k7

t h e Act.

Thls

al.legatlon was

ampl i f i ed in

v a r l e t y of

ways.

v a s f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t

C.13.A.

Insurance

- 3 -

Services

Limited had aided,

abet

ted,

comsel

led,

procured,

Induced o r attempted -to induce the

Banl;

t o engage i n t h e p r a c t Lce

o€

exclusive dealing,

and v a i - i o u o t h e r allegations were made

r e l a t e d t o t h i s m a t t e r .

the r e l i e f sough t ,=dec la ra t ions

were

asked f o r that the Cornerclal.

Bsnlc of Australia Limlted had

been engaged

In the p rac t i ce o f

exclusrr.ve dea l ing or had

attempted

t o engage In t h e p r a c t i c e

and that C.B.A.

Insurznce Services

Limited had

aided,

abetted, covnselle6, procured,

induced

o r

attempted. t o induce it t o engage i n

t h a t p r a c t i c e . I n j u n c t i o n s

were asked

for I;o

prevenl ; e i ther

o f these defendants from

fur ther engaging

I n such conduct.

their s ta tement of defence f i led

21st September

1977,

t he de fecdan t s dcnxd the a l l e&a t ions

ir_

the statement a counter-claim i n which they a l leged

c la im re l a t lng to exs lus lve dea l ing

and

mcluded

that Insurance Brokers

Bssociatlon

o€

Australia,

P r l ce i ' i l t c l~e l l P ty .

Liml ted,

Jmes

IkInerney and

Specialist Newsletters Pty. Limlted

had

engaged

i n canduct which hl~itiered

prevented the supply of insurance

b rok ing se rv ices in

manner

contrary to

s.45.D

o f

t he Ac t ; t ha t

t h e Eirst,

second and

fourth of these cross-defendants

had

engaged

i n conduct i n t r a d e and

commerce

v:hich

was misleading 01- deceptive

or l l lcely to mislead

or dece lve , cont ra ry to

s.52

of the kc t; and,

t ha t t he

f i rs t ,

second and fourth cross-defendants

had

a l s o

i n t r a d e

commerc~ engaged

In conduct

that

was

l i a b l e t o m i s l e a d

the pub l i c

i n contravention of

S . 55A

of the Act.

It vas

fur-cher

al-leged tha t each

the cross-delcndants, including

t h e t'nil-(l

crnoss-dc€endant, had

i n v a r i o u s wys, alcied each

the

o ther c r m z -

defendants

t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s .

I11

the

rel . ie€

soughk,

there

vas

- 4 -

reques t for dec la ra t lons tha t the c ross -defendants

and

each

of them had been engaged

i n cond.uct In contravention of

ss.b5D,

and

55A o f the Act ;

dec la ra t lon tha t the-second,

third.

and fourth cross-defendants

had

aided, abet ted, counsel led,

procured,

indu-ced

o r attempted t o induce the

flrst nanted cross-

defendant t o engage i n conduct 111 con'iraventlon of these sec' i lons;

and permanent

and

ln t e r im in junc t ions

were

sough-c

to prevent each

of the cross-defendants

from f u r t h e r enga&ng

i n such conduc-c.

n o t i c e of

motion also

f i l ed on 2 1 s t

September 1977,

i n t e r i m r e l i e f

vas

sought by

the

Commercial

Bank o€ Austral ia Limited

and C.B.A.

Insurance Servlces Lmited

as	has already been mentioned.

The

Commercial

Bank

o f Aus t r a l i a Lmi ted

(hereaf te r ce l led I t the

C.B.A.

Bankff) 1s

corporat ion

ciuly

incorporated

which

c a r r i e s

the business of banking throughout

Aus t ra l ia .

C.B.A.

Insurance

Services

Limited

(hereaf ter

cal led

IfC.B.A.	Insurancef1) is a	company which was	m c o r p o r a t e d i n	l
!

December 1976.

It i s a wholly owned subs id ia ry of

the

C.B.R.

Bank

and,

a € t e r Its incorporatlon,

took

over an insurance business

vh,rrhlch had previously been conducted

as a department of t h e

C.B.A.

B a n k

i t s e l f .

The	Insurance Brokers AssociatLon of AustralLa

(hereaf te r ca l led " Insurance

13ro!rers1t) is a

company l imi t ed Ly

guarantee, incorporated

i n the State of Vic tor ia

which has at Kt1

mater ia l

tlmes,

been the holder

o f

l icence granted by

the Attorney-General	of	Vlc tor la pursuant to	S .24	01	t h e Comprinies	l
1

Act 196-1 (Vic.) .

it is a non-prof i t

assoc la t ion ,

the

members

which

are insurance brokers carrylng

bus lness in Aus t r a l i a .

Pr ice Ml tche l l P ty . L lmi ted (hereaf te r

called

!!Price

Mitchell1I)

is a

companjr duly

incorporated

which

c a r r i e s

the business of

insurance broker

i n Aus t ra l ia .

one of the members o f Insurance Ero!:ers.

Janes 14cInerney is

the Pres ident

and a

d i r e c t o r of

Insurance Brokers

and

d i r e c t o r

of Pr ice called !ISpeclalist Nev!slet-terstt)

Nitchel l .

Special is t

I \Te:s le t ters

Pty.

Limited

(herea€ter

i s h company duly mcorporatcd

i n A u s t r a l i a w h c h c a r r i e s o n

business of

newsle t te r

publisher.

It pu.bl ishes

and dis

lbutes

the

insurame

~nd~rs t ry

a	newslet ter cal led t lCover

The complaint made by Yhe C .B .A. Bank 2nd

C.E.A.

Insurance on the motion, concerns

a number 01 publications

issued by Insurance

'Brokers.

The first o f t hese 1s a l e t t e r

dated

23rd

August 1977 over the

s igna tu re

of J@.

1"IcInerney as

President ,

which uas

c i r c u l a t e d t o

members of

Parliament.

The

mater la l . par t

o€

this

l e t t e r i s a s follow:

!'Re:

Con€ldent ia l l tg and Coercion

The Insurance Brokers

Association of Austral ia today

commenced

procecdmgs

i n

the Federal Court

o f

Aus t r a l i a

aga lns t t he

COHidECIAL B.4iiIC

AUSTRALIA LTD. , a l l e g i n g

tha t the l r a t tempted en t ry In to

the

Insurance Kzrke-t

i l l e g a l and ought

to be S topped.

We have taken

this

course because ve

be1 i eve -&at t h e

C.D.A.

1 s using i t s Branch Managers

t o e x e r t

pressure

on customers

t o arrange

thelr

Insur-ances

tl1rouli.h the

banlc

and

i n s o dolng

thcy are uslng cocfident ia l

- 6 -

cus to:ner

in€ormatlon.

You

a r e i n

p o s i t i o n t o p r o t e c t bmlc customers

ensur ing tha t

bailks,

vhlch are llcenced by

-Government, do

not abuse thelr

posl Lion.

ask Tor your help

i n this matter.

Included with of two letLnrs w r i t t e n by t h e C.B,A.

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

LiQg

t o b e t h e t e x t

Paid< to customers.

The second document complained of

i s a

c l r c u l a r l e t t e r d a t e d 2 3 r d

August

1977 w r i t t e n by Insurance

Brokers

over the s ignature

o f Mr.

McInerney

as Dresldent, which

was sen t r e f e r r i n g t o t h e

t o

the b ranch

managers of t h e C.B.A.

Bank.

M t e r

coImcncement

of proceedings

i n the Federal

Court of Australia

t o r e s t r a i n t h e

C.B.A.

Bank from ~ ~ s o l l c i t ~ n ~

insurance busmess

€rom i ts customers un€alrlyl!,

it s t a t e d

t h a t

dec la ra t ion was

sought that the banlrts conduct contravened

the Trade Practices Act. It then	proceeded	t o d i s c u s s	t h e	I
i
i

r e l a t ionsh lp

of bmkerand customer and

s t a t e d

t o the branch

managers that t h e s o i u t l o n

was

i n t h e i r hands.

It inclucied

the paragraph,

llYou,

through your professional associat lon,

a r e i n a

posi t ion to refu-se

compromised

and

t o o f f l c i a i l y

say P N ~ ,

I will

not peddle insurame

or u s e c o n f d e n t l a l

information to	sell any o€ the bankss goods	o r servicesC!I.	I
i

Included with

t h i s was what purported t o be

t h e text of

the sane

tyro l e t t e r s s a d t o he v r i t t e n by

Lhe C.3.R.

Bank

to customers

and

three ' car-Loons,

gene ra l ly r ep resen tme

the bank

as having LLS

customers over

a barrel o r b a l l l n g them

a t the point

gun

to take out insurancc .

- 7 -

The next publication complained of

vas a ne?E

re lease i ssued apparent ly

by NI-. NcInerney which

vas forwarded,

i n t e r a l i a ,

t o S p e c i a l i s t N e w s l e t t e r s .

mzde

t h e

sane

general

a l l ega t ions aga ins t t he

C.B.A.

Bank

as had bee*

made

i n t h e

c i r c u l a r s .

I t vas a l s o dakeci 23rd hugus t ,

1377.

Its opening

paragraph vas as follows:

Wr.

J i m I~icInerney, Federal President

o f

t h e

I n s u r a x e

Broi;ers

Assoclat lon of Austral ia ,

Lodq accused

m -4ustralian Trading Bank of

a	PlnaJor comnsrclal r lp-offz l'.

further complaint concerned

t7wo

i s s u e s

newsle t te r c i rcu la ted throughout Aus t ra l le by pos t to

subscr ibers

S p e c l a l l s t Nerrsle t t e r s ca l l ed i t cove r

Notei!

The

compla in t re la ted to the l ssues of

30th

August,

1977

and

6th

September 1977. Broadly

speaking,

they

conveyed

the

same

a l l ega t lons

vcre

s e t f o r t h i n

t h e c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s

and

t h e news

re l ease .

It appears

tha t Spec ia l l s t Newsle t te rs ,

before publlshlng

this

material, telephoned both Ixlsurance Brokers

and

t h e C.B.A.

Bank

on the subjec t mat te r of the

news

r e l e a s e .

The C.B.A.

Bank r e f u s e d t o make any comment.

On behalf or" t h e C.R.A.

Bank and C.B.A.

Insurance it was

submi t ted tha t the

f irst three respondents

were

conducting a

campaign

a g a i n s t

t h e

C.B.A.

Bank.

It vas pomted

out tha t

virtually contemporaneously VI

t h t h e f i l i n g o f

statement

o f

c l a im, the ' c l r cu la r l e t t e r s

were

s e n t o u t t o

menbws

of Parlialnent and

to branch managers

and

the nevs release

vrlas

' P 2'

- a -

issued.

It was suggested

that

the

proceedmgs

mre

being

used

as a vehic le t o enable pubiic

criticism t o be made o€ t he C.E.A.

Bank.'

It was submitted that

the statemcnts vhlch

were

being

circula-ted and published were

i n f a c t f a l s e

and -would mislead

the

publ ic in the course

t r ade

and

colnmerce

and

t h a t t h e y r e l a t e d ,

in subs tan t ia l measure , to the i ssue

be determjned In the

proceedings.

In the case

of the circular

branch managers

it vas

con-tended th i s cou ld

well have an ilqproper influence

on them,

an6

t h a t some

o f

bhem

might be vi-tnesses

t h e t r i a l .

I t was

claimed that pendmg the hearing

the proceedings,

the respondents

t o the motlon

should be r e s t r a ined f ron

making

such misleading

statements.

It was

f u r t h e r

su.bmitted

t h a t ,

f a r f rom being concerned

t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s

the

publ lc by

c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n

t o these matters,

tile

first

th ree

respondents

t o the motion were comerned

m t h business ~~!at te~- . . ;

and were

endeavouring t o impede the lavrPul competitlon i n w h x h

they

found themselves engaged

in the in su rance lms iness v i th

the C.B.A. Bank,

and

i t s s u b s i d l a r y , t h a t t h e i r a c t l o n s

were

d l c t a t ed by

p r o f i t

motlve.

For the f i rs t three respondents

t o the mo-cion,

It was

submi i; ted that

the a l l ega t lons

they were making were

not mlsleadlng

but

were

i n f a c t t r u e ; t h a t

they were matters

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t

which

vas desirable should be fully debated

with a v iev t o seelng vhe ther the

law

should be

a l t e r e d as they

clalmed it should be.

It was a l s o argued. that Insurance

Bro1:cr-s

vas not a corporation wi th in the

meaning of S. 52 of t he Act

s ince t h i s was

deflned as re fernr ig t o a

t radlng o r f inanc ia l

- 9 -

corporation whereas

it was

associat lon of brokers

o f

a non-profit cllarac'ter and

was

i n no wa17

engaged l n trade.

I t vas

further submitted that thc second res2ondeni:

had

n o t

been shovm t o be taking

zn a c t i v e part i n the making of the

statements;

that ltk. McInerney was a p r iva t e

ind lv idua l

-to

whom s.52 did not

address

any

prohlbl t ion;

and,

therefore ,

the re l lef sought should be refused.

was

also argued

tha t

any

statements by insurance Erokers or	r b . NcInerney ':;ere	no t made
i n Lrade o r commerce.

For

Specia l l s t Newsle t te rs

i t was

submitted

t h a t t h e y a c t e d i n

good

f a i t h and

af ter reasonable enquiry

information supplied to

them

on a

Inakter which appeared

t o them

t o be a lnatter o f publlc

in-Lerest;

that

they

ought

not

r e s t r a i n e d from pul>llshing matter

t h e t o p i c s i n

question;

and

tha t

t o r e s t r a m

them would

t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h

the

Ireedorn

of	t he p re s s .

answer t o

the

submission that n e i t h e r

of the first tvo respondents was a corporat lon, it vas argued	I
I

for the

appl icants tha t the Cour t has

power

to grant

inJunct lon

a t the su l t of any person

( S .80( 'i ) ( c ) ) ;

that It may grant an

injunction agains t any person

(whether

a corporat lon or no t ) fl-om

engaging In

c o n d u c t t h a t c o n e t l h t e s

contravention

provislon

01 Pas t V

the Act

o r from a id lng , abe t t lng , cou1se l l ing

I ,

or procurlng a person to contravene such

a pl.ovislon o r bein&

i n any

way

c l i r c c t l y o r ' l n d ~ r e c t l y

linowiingly concerned i n or par ty

t o the contravention by

a person o€ such a provis lon ( S .80( 1 ) (ci)

( f ) and (11)).

It Iras f u r t h e r submitted tha t the ma'iter

was

covered by

s .6(2) (h) vrhich is as fo1hvs : -

116. ( 2 )

Thls Act , other

than Part

has,

Porce

of this sub-sect ion,	the effect	it would
have i f -
...

(11)

sub jec t

pa rag raphs

(d)

( e r ;

( f )

and

( g ) , a re ference i n t h l s Act

t o

a corporation, except

a reference l n

sect lor , L:,

48, 50 or81 orsub-section

8 8 ( 9 ) ,

mcluded a re ference t o a person not

being a corporatlon.I1

There is no	need	t o	d e a l	i n d l v i d u a l l y	r n t h the	vayious	ect ions	!
i

and

paragraphs

t o v h l c h t l n s p r o v i s i o n r e P e r s .

They

a r e n o t

r e l evan t	t o t h i s discussion.	A t this	in t e r locu to ry	s t age ,	no	!
I '

argunent

vas

addressed on the cons t i tu t lona l

val idi ty

s .G(2) ( h ) .

I t appears to

an bound

t o assume

i ts const i tut ional valxl i 'cy.

The consequence of

this is t h a t t h e

f a d tha t Insurance

Brolicrs

and

Hi.

McInerney

are not corpora t ions as def ined

i n t h e Aci

docs

not exclude

them from the opera t ion of

s.52.

Counsel

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

d i d

r e f e r a l s o

t o s . 6 ( 3 ) .

T h i s i s as

follows:-

" 6 . ( 3 ) .

I n a d d i t i o n

t o

t h e e f f e c t

t h a t

t h i s A c t , o t h e r

than Par t X, has as provided by sub-sectlon

( Z ) ,

Divlsion 1 of Par t

V hasp by Torce

t h i s sub-

s e c t i o n , t h e e f f e c t

it would have

i f

( a )

that D i v j s i o n (other than

sec t ion 55) v e r e ,

express p rov l s lon ,

conflned I n i t s operation

t o engaging i n coilduct t o t he ex ten t

t o T,Ihlch

the

conduct

involves

the use of postal

t e legraphic

o r t e lephonic serv ices

o r ta!:es

p lace

111

r a d l o

o r t e lev is lon broadcas t ;

( b ) i n s e c t i o n

t h e words

llcausc o r permlt

se rvant

o r

agent of the corporat lon to"

?.rere

omitted; and

(c )

subjec t

to paragraph

(b), a reference 111 t h a t

i ) iv~.s lon

t o a

co rpora t~on mc luded a

reieri.llce

t o a person not belng

a corporation. I'

- 11 -

There is evidence from which

it may be

i n f e r r e d t h z t t h e

tiI0

c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s

and

t h e two

l s s u e s of

ItCov& Note'!,

which

a r e sald t o c o n t a i n

Lhe

mlsleadmg

statements, were s e n t by pos t .

However,

t he

app l i can t s

have

no t

i n thelr not lce of motion sought any rel ief

dram

i n such

a way t o t h e v i e v

t o r e s t r a l n use

o€

t h e p o s t a l s e r v i c e s .

Having

regzrd

which

take concerning the other submlssions

or?

bchalf of the appl icants ,

i s unnecessary

d e a l f u r t h e r

w i th the pcs t a l

services.

ansrrer

t o the submiss ion tha t ne i the r

of the

first two

respondents had

made

s t a t emen t s i n t r ade

o r

commerce,

the opposLte

was

argued o n behalf of the appl icants .

It was and commerce.

contended that indeed these statements were

made

l n t r a d e

to t he submiss lon t ha t t he re was

evld,

-11

c p

linking Pr ice M

tch$l l wi th the s ta tements ,

It was

pointed out

on behalf

o f

the

appl icants , tha t

Mr.

13cInerney a s w e l l

being President

or^ the Insurance Brokers

i s a d i r e c t o r o f Pr ice

Mi tche l l , t ha t P r l ce rwtche l l

was

joined

one

t h e p l a l n t l i f s

i n

the or iglnal s ta temenI; of c la im,

that

the publ ished matter

m IICover K o I ; ~ ~ ~

re lers t o them and when Hr. IkInerncy wro te a

l e t t e r t o S p c c ~

3list Newsletters on 6 t h September 1977 as

President

Insurance Brokers complaining

o f

an aspect

o f t h e

presenta t ion

o€

h i s case aga ins t t hc

Bank,

he gave Prrce

I4itchell

as	t h e a d d r e s s f o r t h e r e p l y .

- 12 -

is necessa ry to

say

something

a t t h e o u t s e t

about the

task o f the Court

i n approaching a claim Tor i n t e r m

r e l i e f .

Undcr

s.80

oP the Trade Practices Act,

i t is provldcd

that the Ccurt

Inay,

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

o f

t h e h n i s t e r ,

the

Commission,

o r ,

sub3ec-L

inma te r l a l qua l i f i ca hon , "any

o the r personff , g ran t

inJunctiol1 rcs-tLnalnlng a

person from

engaging i n conduct that

constitutes

o r would

c o n s t i t u t e a

contravention o f the provis ion

of P a r t V o f the Act

which ~ r , .

!i.ldf-s

s.52.

I t i s apparent that i n sorie c a ~ e s

]:here

a private ~ S ; T C U I

brings the proceedings, that person

may

endeavourxlg t o

p r o t e c t

h i s

p r o p r i e t a r y

i n t e r e s t .

T h i s i s

s o where,

f o r

example,

a plaFnt l€f

seeks t o r e s t r a i n The misleading conduct

ia the course o f another being passed

o f

trade or commerce which

r e s u l t s i n t h e

gooci:

o f f as h i s goods,

thereby causing

11111

l o s s and

damaging

his goodwill.

On the other hand,

there

arc'

cases where

p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t

is involved but

what

i s sought

t o be protected

i s t h e m t e r e s t s

consua?rs ,

thzt is, the

publ ic ,

and

t o p r o t e c t

them

froln being rnlsled

i n t h e c o u r s e

o r

t r a d e o r commerce.

The na ture o f t h e c l a m

which is made

i n

any pa r t i cu la r ca se

will,

of course, have

a bearing on t h e

approach which the

Cour t has

t o make

t o the question

vhe ther o r no t

should grant an r e l a t i o n t o t h e m a t t e r

injmc.tlon.

This

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y

s o i n

inter im inJvnct ions. Sect lon

sub-section

2 i s as fo l lows:

llWhere in

the oplnion

of the Court it i s des i r ab le

t o do s o , the Court

may grznt an interim lnjunc

Lion

pending determma Lion o f

an app Licatj on under

sub-sec tion ('i ) .

- 13 -

i s c l e a r t h a t

the Court

has

a v ide d i sc re t lon vhe the r

o r no t

it will

g r a i t a n

lnterlul inJunction under

this provls lon.

is a l s o c l e a r , i n

vlev,

that

the in Junc t ion r e fe r r ed

t o

is n o t l n t e r i m i n

-the mo~-e l imlted sense

i n whl’ch

t h ~ s

word

i s sometimes used,

but enlpovers the Court ,

111 e f f e c t , t o

gran t an in te r locutory in junc t ion

pel?ding

t h e

i i n a l h e a r l n g

issues . !

the

and

determlnat ion

Al-l;ho~~gh

t e Court has a dl.scretlon, it

d i s c r e t i o n t o b e e x e r c i s e d

not,

a r b i t r a r i l y but

i n accol,darce

with principle.

Broadly

speaking,

it may be said that the Couri ,

i n d e a l i n g v i t h

the matter

an inter im

o r

m t e r l o c u t o r y b a s l s ,

i s inevi tab ly faced

m t h the problems which

Courts for

sorne

tl.me

have been

faced

i?li;h i n t h l s s i t u a t i o n .

The

problem

i s

one

of having regard

t o a l l -the i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e

in t e r im pe r iod p r io r

t o the determinat ion of the

facts

a t

t h e

hearing

o€

the matter

i n order

t o dec ide v l la t should fa l r ly

be done i n t h e meantime!.

Where a propr ie ta ry

in te res t ,

the

subJecT

the

proceeding

involved , the equi tab le pr inc ip les

whxh

r e l a t e t o t h e c a s e s

w h ~ c h the

Court

will

s tep m

t o p r o t e c t

t h e p r o p r i e t a r y m t e r e s t

t h a t lt will

n o t be destroyed

p r i o r

t o

the hear lng of

the matter , ~?ould

doubt

relevarl-t,

Incked,

thls

Court

will

pay cons iderable regard to the pr inc ip lcs

adopkcd

Courts of equity

and

o t h e r c o u r t s l n

considering whether

i n t e r m r e l i e f

by way

o€ inJunc-Lion

should be granted. The

spec ia l cons idera t lon

wlpch

e n t e r s i n t o

the

n a t t e r I n t h e c a s e s

- 14 -

d e a l t with by

t h i s Court

1 s t ha t it i s Gzaling lilt11 in te r im

r e l i e f i n r e l a t i o n

t o

s ec t lons v:hich

a re des igned to p ro tcc t

t he pub l l c i n t e re s t .

In my opinion, the Court

wlll approach %Le

questlon whether

appl ica t j on f o r an

lnterlm

injunct ion should

succeed by

seeing, i n t h e f lrst instance, whether the

applicant

hzs m2d.e

0u.t

a prima

fac l e case

In the sense explained

i n t h e

case o f -

Beecham Group Lim1:tc-d

v. B r i s t.01 Lzboratories Pt.. . Ljn;-cec;.

(1968) 118 C.L.R.

618.

It will

be noted that i n t h a t c a s e t h e

High

Court vas

consider lng the qvest lon

i n t e r l m r e l i e f i n

the

exercise of	a	s t a t u t o r y j u r i s d i c t l o n .	As	I	under s t and the va t t e r ,	I
!

i n o r d e r t o

show

p r lma f ac i e case in

t h i s

sense,

1 s no t

necessa ry to

show t h a t 1

I; i s more prob%l~l_e

i h x ~

not

t h a t t h e

appl icant vi11 succeed a t the

hearing.

It i s suffi .crent if

t h e a p p l i c e n t e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t

has

a f a i r chance

o€

success.

Vhat will

bs required wj11 vary accordmg

t o t he na tu re

02 the cas;:.

.If a prima

f a c i e c a s e

i s shown,

the Court

will then move to

consider

the balance

o f convenlence.

In soge

cases, the considerat ions which then apply

€or determmlng the

balance o f convenience, will he very

smilar t o those which epply

i n a cour t of

equi by.

In o the r cases, where

Lhe

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t

i s involved,

rnay

necessa ry to we jgh the pub l i c l n t e re s t

againsl: a

counterval l ing public

i n t e r e s t or

pr iva te in te i -es t .

In a case such Mcwsle t t c r s , t h e r e

as the present ,

as 1-k

app l i e s t o S p e c i a l i s t

v:ould

room

a t t h a t p o i n t

€01- conslder lne

t h e p u b l j c i n t e r e s t i n r c l a t l o n t o

freedom

speech,

which

COI~LICII

lawyers

have

advc r t cd to

In rela-clon

t o the grant of lnter l rn

inJunct j 011s

3.n

defamaI;lon cases.

- 15 -

One of the natters to be considered

here is

whether an undertaking as t o damages is ozfered by t h e appl icant .

It 1 s

'provided

i n s .80 (6 )

that where

t h e N i n i s t e r

or t h e Coinmlssion

makes

app l l ca t lon f o r t h e g r a n t

injun? t ion under

t h e

sec t ion the Cour t sha l l

not.

requlre

Yne

appl icant

o r

any other

person as any undertakings as t o damages.

condi t ion

g;rant ing an inter im lnjunct ion, to

give

There

i s no

s u c h r e s t r l c t i o u

i n the Act against requiring an uzldertaklng

Prom a private pprson

applying f o r an mJu?ct lon under

s.80.

Hovever, It 1 s t o be

noted tha t such a person nay

from one po in t of view be

regarded as seeking, by

inJunction,

t o enforce com2liance

mth

t h e lav.

Where the

Attorney-General

seeks

enforce

compliance

v i t h t h e

law,

i n t h i s sense, it i s not customary

t o r equ i r e ~n

undertaking as t o damages from h i m .

On the

other

hand,

vhere

pr iva te person br ings such proceed~ngs

having

the

f i a t

of the Attorney-General he may be requi red to g lve an undertaking

as t o damages (HofPmaix-La Roche 0 Co. A-G v. Sec-retarv of S-I-a-C-e

€ o r Trade

m d Indus t r~ r

(1975) A.

C. 295 a t p. 3G$.

Under

S .80,

a pr lva te person

has

s t a t u t o r y

au tho r iky to

bring

the proceeding

and

this appems to absolve

him

from the

necess i ty o f

o b t a m i n g t h e

f l a t o€

the kt torney-

General.

Whether

t h i s shou ld

assimilate

h l s p o s i t i o n t o t h a t

the

Attorney-General

suing

enforce

the

publlc

i n t e r e s t o r t o a

p r l v a t e

md1.viclua3!

suing

r e l a t i o n

i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r .

The approach o f the Court

think should

be t h a t i-t will

c n q l i r e

from a pr ivate person seelxng

a11 mte r im ln junc t ion

xrhether he is

w l l i n g t o g i v e a n u n d e r t a k i n g

t o damages.

The

Court

should

then take into account

the balance of cbnvenience

thc

prc:.?nv

I . b:

- 16 -

o r absence of

such an

undertalc~ng as one

01 t h e f a c t o r s

t o be

considered in exerclsil lg

i t s d iscrez ion .

Turning t o t h e f a c t s

th;

present case ,

a good

dea l o f

evidence has been tendered

on the I s sues a r i s lng

the app l i ca t ion fo r mte r im re l l e f

bu-t

i s

c l e a r t h a t

something

f a r

less

t han the co~~~p le t e ev idence ~ , rh~ .ch

might

available

a t the f i n a l h a r i n g of

the proceed.ings,

is a7railcblu

a t Lhis

stag?. Since

q r bask i s to determine

whether

the

app l i can t fo r

the injunct lon has

made

out a prlma fac i e case

i n t h e r e l e v a n t s e n s e ,

not

propose

-to canvass

i n d e t a i l

Yne

evldencn g ~ v e n

on the var ious i ssues

hu t ra-ther t o express

concluslon as

t o 17hether a p r m a f a c l e c a s e

has been made

out , leaving

a closer sssessment

-the erldence

t o be mzde at

t he f ina l hea r lng

the proceedlngs.

iidoptmg t h l s approach, I have come t o tile

concluslon tht i t the appl lcant

has made

out a prlrna

fac ie cese

t h a t

the a l legat ion '

Lha t

t he Bank

j S

involved

i n an attempted

en t ry in to

rhe

insurance market which

i s I l l ega l vou ld

s h o ~ m

t o be misleading

o r deceptive

o r l i k e l y t o m i s l e a d

deceive.

Furi;ncmnore,

I cons ider tha t

a prima

facie case has been

made

oul: tha t the s ta tement tha t

the bank is using ~

branch

managers

t o exer t p ressure

customers to arrange u?surance

with

Its

subsidiary is misleading o r deceptive o r 1lbel.y t o mislead o r

deccivc. O n the other-hand I have come Lo the conclusion t!mt

the

a p p l x a n t s have

n o t establxshed a p r m a 1ac ie case tha t

2.t

- l 7 -

mlsleadlng or deceptive

o r l lke ly t o mislead

o r deceive

s t a t e

that

confidential

lnformat lon in the hands

t h e bank

1 s be.i.nc

used

b t h e r ~ l s e t h a n

i n

conncc-tlon wlth the banker and customer

r e l a t lonsh lp .

nons of

these

three

issues

i's m y conc1uslo;l

in tended to represent

f lna l de te rmina t lon of the i ssue .

It is qui tc poss ib le that a t the hear ing

it may be found,

as a

f i n a l f a c t , t o

the

opposite effect of anythlng which

have

now

said

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

I have also come to the conclusion thet

the appl lcants have establ ished

p:*lma

f a c i e c a s e

that

these

statements uere made by Insurance Brokers,

i3r. IkInerney

and

Spec ia l i s t Ne l r s l e t t e r s

i n

t r ade

or comrcerce;

and, fuskher ,

thal;

Insura~lce Brokers

and

I I r .

!'5cInesney

a r e p a r t i e s a g a i n z t

whom a notvrithstanding Insurance

p r ima f ac i e case fo r i n i e r lm re l i e f

has been made

out

Bro!ters

is a non-profi t assoclat lon

m d Hr.

14cIaerney 1 s an individual .

In m y o p ~

nion

su- f f lc ien t

prima

f ac i e case has

been

e s t ab l i shed l i nk ing P r i ce Mi tche l l

with

t h e

s ta tenents ln ques t ion .

conclusion as t o t he re bemg

a prima

fac i e case

111 relal-]on to

two of the types o f statement colnplalned

o f , l e a d s

to a considerat ion of the balance

of convenience

Lo	determine whether an interim lnjunction should be granted

or no t .

th is regard,

is my

oplnlon t h a t the s ta tements

i n ques t ion ,

I f s a t th.e

f i n a l h e a r i n g ,

turns out they

were

fa l se , might ,

i f i n the meantime they were made,

cause consldx able

damage to t h e bank and

thal; this darnqp would be

d i f f i c u l t t o

- ?a -

Rank‘s competl I;lon

f r e e

these verbal assaul ts pending

the hear ing

rnlght

lead.

t o some l o s s of business

on t h e part

Price Mitchell ,

vhich

conducts

an insurance business. It

might fur ther be

said thak any under taking offered

by t h e

C.B.A.

Bank as t o damages, would be d i f f ~ c u 1 . t

take advantage

of .

These, ho?dever,

would

not

appear

s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s .

Another matker

t o be

considered i s that

i n b r m g i n g t h e i r

moI;ion f o r a3 i n j w x t i o n , t h e a p p l l c a n t s

may

regarded

s e e k i n g t o p r o t e c t t h e p v h l l c i n t e r e s t

prevclltlng the

making

of Palse s ta tements ,

but

is d i € f i c u l t t o a t t a c h m ~ c ! ~

welght t o this i n advance of

a f m a l determination being

a r r ived a t as t o whether the statements

are 111 fact false 01’

n o t .

Another

elenent

IjuElc

I n t e r e s t i s tha t mat ters

th l s type should ,

it i s su.bmltted, be open

f o r pdblic

dlscussion,

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n

view

t h e f a c t t h a t

some

persons

nzy

conslcie.

that an amendment of Yhe law i s required.

However, where t h e

s ta temcnt re la tes

t o a

matter which

i s i n i s sue in p roceed ings ,

t h e r e is, I think,	less f o r c e	i n	th i s conslderat ion.	The trro
0

s’tatemnI;s ln r e spec t of which

I have he ld tha t there

1s a prlnla

f ac i e case e s t ab l i shed a re ,

t o

some

degree ,

re la ted

t o the ~ s s u e

whether t he bank i s contravening s.47

of the Act,

though It

may contravene thn

s e c t i o n by obta ln lng the lnser t lon of

c o n d i t ~

on by

agreement with

i t s cus tomer.

understand that

the appl icants

o€fer

an undertalc~ng as t o damages,

a 1

though a s I have said, 1 I; does

not appear tha t

thls

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t

Srom

t h e po?-:l~

I .

of	v iev of the respondents pe~d~.ng the hear ing .

- l 9 -

I n t h e r e s u l t ,

1 have

come

t o the concluslo11

tha t on

the balance of

co9venience i n r e s p e c t

o f t h e tiro ma-i-

t e r s

where a prma Tacie

case has been estab.Llshed, an interlm

injunct ion should

t o o p e r a t e ~ n t i l . t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f

t h e

matters i n d ispute i n the proceedings.

Turning t o t h e

position

S p e c i a l i s t

Newsle t t e r s ,

it vould appear

that thls 1 s a t r ad ing corpora:;:.cxn,

which vou.ld 1211 VL ih~n

t h e

p~-ov i s ions

o f

S. 52

and

t h & t , alb::~t

i n good faith,

they

have

published

the

offendir?g

statelnents.

The

ques-tlon is

whether, on the balance

o f

convenience,

they

should be restrained pending the hear lng

the mat te r .

I t 1:;

argued, on behalf of

that company,

t h a t i t acted reasonably

and sought to check

i t s information, but

whlle t h i s may be a

d.e€ence ur?der s.85 i € t h e company were being prosecuted,

does not appear to

avail t h e company

i n proceed.mgs

for

Injunct ion, a l though

may

perhaps be taken into account

t h e quest ion of

whe-Gher t h e Court

shou ld exe rase

i t s d i sc re t l on

111 favour of grenting an

Interim

lnJunct1on.

On the balance

convenience, as

i t aCfec ts Spec ia l l s t I\Temdetters, It may

suggested tllzt

l t would

lose

some

I n t e r e s t and

c i r c u l a t l o n v h l c h

othel-wize i t mlght have secured by

publishing

the mater la l

I n

question should

be subjected to an injunct ion, but velghed

aga lns t the damage

the

applicants

i f

t h e s t a t e m n t s p r o v e

t o b e f a l s e

the €~.nal

hear ing

-the m a t t e r , t h l s

would

appear

t - 0 8

a r e l a t ive ly l e s se r we igh t

111 the

sca1.e~.

the o t h e ~ ,

hand, t he p l ea

that

freeclorn of speech o r €reedorn 01

t h e pr.es:;

r equ i r e s t h a t

they should be able to discuss

this mat te r f r ee ly

- 20 -

has

some

substance

i n r e l a t i o n

t o

t h i s respondent.

However,

s ince the

t?ro

subJeck matters

a r e

re la ted to i ssues ~ . rh ich

will	be berore the Court	a t the	f i n a l h e a r i n g	o f	t h e mat t e r ,
.*

t h e r e

i s

orervhelmlng ve ight to be a thched to

this

conslderat ion

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

i n t h e

meantime.

propose

that the followiEg orders be

made -

Order. tha t the

Insurance

Brokers

Associatlon

Aus t r a l i a

and

James

IkInerney be restrained pendmg the

de termlnatlon

these proceedings

or fu r the r o rde r

from	pub l i sh ing any s t a t emen t t o the e f f ec t t ha t t he

Comerc ia l Bark of Australia Lirnlteci 1s involved i n an

e n t r y o r

attempted entry into the insurance market

~ ~ h l c h

i s

i l l e g a l

o r

any s t a t emen t t o the e f f ec t

khat

t h e

CommFrcial Bank of Australia Llmlted

is using 1 k s

branch

managers

to exert pressure

customers to

arrange

insurance with i t s subs ld ia ry ,	C.B.A.	Insu rance Se rnces
Limlted.

Order that

Specialist

Newslet ters Pty. Lmited be

restrained pendmg the deter ininat ion

these procecdlngs

o r h r t h e r o r d e r

€rom

publishing any such statements

PROVIDED

that

this

order

shall no t p reven t Spcc ia l l s t

Ncv:sletters Pty. Llmited

from publ ishing

f a l r repor t

of any park of khesc current	proceedmgs.	I
I

Order the costs

a1.1

p a r t l e s

these

proceedings

c o s t s i n t h e c a u s e .

- 21 -

[1977] FCA 78

2 Nov 1977