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

[1977] FCA 78

~

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.

..

I

I

I

!

TN THE i\lAT'rER of the Trade Practices - Act 1974

Cross-Cl21 rE?nts

I

O R D E R

JUC'JE Kf;I<IVG OFJIER: Bowen C . J .

DATE OF 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

of 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.

2. Order that Spec ia l i s t Nevs le t te rs P ty . Limlked. be

restrained pendlng the determlnat lon of 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

of any p a r t o€ these current proceedings.

3 . Order t h e c o s t s of a l l p a r t i e s of these proceedings

be cos t s i n the cause .

!

i

I

Cross-Cl aimants

Cross-Defendants

1

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

T h i s is a motion €or injunctions brought by t

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

I

Services Limited against the Insurance Brokers Assocm tion of

Aus t ra l l s , P r i cc K i 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

I

r . , J

I .

- 2 -

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

s.52 of 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 on 1n 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 1n

conduct In cont ravent ion of ,SS .45D a ~ d 55h o€ the Act, but T c

the course 02 the hear ing, these ceased to bs 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

of summons and a 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 OK

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 of t h e Act. Thls al.legatlon was ampl i f i ed in

a v a r l e t y of ways. it 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

I . r

- 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 . In 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.

By their s ta tement of defence f i led on

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 of 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 or prevented the supply of insurance

b rok ing se rv ices in a 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 or 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 of 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 of the o ther c r m z -

defendants m t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s . I11 the rel . ie€ soughk, there vas

- 4 -

a 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,

52 and 55A o f the Act ; a 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;

I

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.

By 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 a corporat ion ciuly

incorporated which c a r r i e s on 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 a 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

of which are insurance brokers carrylng on 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 3

c a r r i e s on the business of insurance broker i n Aus t ra l ia . It is

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 a 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 a business of a newsle t te r

publisher. It pu.bl ishes and dis t r lbutes in 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 i

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:

I

!'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 OF 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 1s

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

ensur ing tha t bailks, vhlch are llcenced by

-Government, do not abuse thelr posl Lion.

3

Ve 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 a dec la ra t ion was sought that the banlrts conduct contravened

i

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 to be 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

up a t the point of a gun to take out insurancc .

- 7 -

I

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 . It 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'.

R further complaint concerned t7wo i s s u e s

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

subscr ibers by 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 as 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 h e

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'

I

- a -

I

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 of t r ade and colnmerce and t h a t t h e y r e l a t e d ,

i

in subs tan t ia l measure , to the i ssue t o be determjned In the

proceedings. In the case of the circular to 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 at t h e t r i a l .

I t was claimed that pendmg the hearing of 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 of 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 a 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 of

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

i

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 an 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 , i

the re l lef sought should be refused. It 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 on

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 to be

r e s t r a i n e d from pul>llshing matter on 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 be t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the Ireedorn l

of t he p re s s .

.h answer t o the submission that n e i t h e r I

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 an 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 a contravention of a

provislon 01 Pas t V of 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 X, has, by Porce

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

(11) sub jec t o 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 of s .G(2) ( h ) . !

I t appears to me I 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

4

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 of 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 , by

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 a r a d l o o r t e lev is lon broadcas t ;

( b ) i n s e c t i o n GO t h e words llcausc o r permlt a

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 3

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 as 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 I take concerning the other submlssions or?

bchalf of the appl icants , it i s unnecessary TO d e a l f u r t h e r

w i th the pcs t a l services.

In 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

As to t he submiss lon t ha t t he re was no evld, -11 c p

linking Pr ice M i 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 as

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 as one of 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 of 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 -

It 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, on 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 to an inma te r l a l qua l i f i ca hon , "any

o the r personff , g ran t an 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 be endeavourxlg t o

p r o t e c t h i s o m 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 no 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 of 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

i t

of inter im inJvnct ions. Sect lon 80

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 ) . It

- 13 -

It 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. It

,

is a l s o c l e a r , i n my vlev, that the in Junc t ion r e fe r r ed t o

.3

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 of determlnat ion

Al-l;ho~~gh t e Court has a dl.scretlon, it

is a 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 on 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

..

of the proceeding is 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 m 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 so 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 no doubt be relevarl-t, Incked,

thls Court will pay cons iderable regard to the pr inc ip lcs adopkcd

by 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 . -

4

In my opinion, the Court wlll approach %Le

questlon whether an 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;. - . - - . - I - - -

(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 of 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 a p r lma f ac i e case in t h i s sense, it 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 it 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 I

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, it rnay be 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 a 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 be 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 of 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 an app l l ca t lon f o r t h e g r a n t of an 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. a condi t ion of 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 to 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

a 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 of

the Attorney-General suing to 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 by 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 I 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 as t o damages. The Court should

then take into account on the balance of cbnvenience thc prc:.?nv

I

- J

i

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 .

_I

Turning t o t h e f a c t s of th; present case ,

a good dea l o f evidence has been tendered on the I s sues a r i s lng

on the app l i ca t ion fo r mte r im re l l e f bu-t lt 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 be

available a t the f i n a l h a r i n g of the proceed.ings, is a7railcblu

I 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 , I do 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

my 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 01 -the erldence t o be mzde at

t he f ina l hea r lng of 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 be 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 or 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 ~ t branch s managers

t o exer t p ressure on 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 is

- l 7 -

mlsleadlng or deceptive o r l lke ly t o mislead o r deceive to s t a t e

that confidential lnformat lon in the hands of 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

.l

r e l a t lonsh lp . On nons of these three issues i's m y conc1uslo;l

in tended to represent a 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 I have

now said In 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 a 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 no 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

e.

with t h e s ta tenents ln ques t ion .

My 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 me to a considerat ion of the balance of convenience

Lo determine whether an interim lnjunction should be granted

or no t . In th is regard, it 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 , it 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 of these verbal assaul ts pending

the hear ing rnlght lead. t o some l o s s of business on t h e part

of Price Mitchell , vhich conducts an insurance business. It

.I -

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 ko take advantage

I

of . These, ho?dever, would not appear to be 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 be regarded as

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 ln prevclltlng the

making of Palse s ta tements , but it 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 of IjuElc I n t e r e s t i s tha t mat ters of

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 of 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

I

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

c o n d i t ~ on by agreement with i t s cus tomer.

I understand that the appl icants do 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 go 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 of 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 of 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, 1 t

does not appear to avail t h e company i n proceed.mgs for an

Injunct ion, a l though it may perhaps be taken into account on

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 of

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

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 it be subjected to an injunct ion, but velghed

aga lns t the damage to 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 on the €~.nal hear ing of -the m a t t e r , t h l s would appear t - 0 8

be of a r e l a t ive ly l e s se r we igh t 111 the sca1.e~. On 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

0

. - 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 no orervhelmlng ve ight to be a thched to this

conslderat ion of 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.

I propose that the followiEg orders be

made -

1. Order. tha t the Insurance Brokers Associatlon of

Aus t r a l i a and James IkInerney be restrained pendmg the

de termlnatlon of 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 on customers to arrange

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

2. Order that Specialist Newslet ters Pty. Lmited be

restrained pendmg the deter ininat ion of 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 a f a l r repor t

of any park of khesc current	proceedmgs.	I
I

3. Order the costs 01 a1.1 p a r t l e s 01 these proceedings be

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

I

l

- 21 -

i

I