Conco Systems Inc. v Specialised Overhaul Service Pty Ltd
[1999] FCA 286
•16 March 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Conco Systems Inc. v Specialised Overhaul Service Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 286
CONCO SYSTEMS INC. v SPECIALISED OVERHAUL
SERVICE PTY LTD & Anor
NG 992 OF 1996
EMMETT J
16 MARCH 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 992 OF 1996
BETWEEN:
CONCO SYSTEMS INC.
ApplicantAND:
SPECIALISED OVERHAUL SERVICE PTY LTD
(ACN 001 766 409)
First RespondentGRAHAM HUBERT SMITH
Second RespondentJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of motion of the second respondent of 5 March 1999 be dismissed.
2.The applicant be given leave to discontinue the proceedings.
3.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings up to and including today.
THE COURT NOTES:
1.The undertaking given to the court by the applicant not to make any further claim against SOS or Mr Smith based on the matters which are the subject of the further amended statement of claim.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 992 OF 1996
BETWEEN:
CONCO SYSTEMS INC.
ApplicantAND:
SPECIALISED OVERHAUL SERVICE PTY LTD
(ACN 001 766 409)
First RespondentGRAHAM HUBERT SMITH
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
16 MARCH 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings commenced in 1997 and first came before me on 7 February 1997. On that occasion directions were given by consent that Specialised Overhaul Service Pty Limited (“SOS”) was to request particulars of the statement of claim by 17 February 1999 and the applicant, Conco Systems Inc. (“Conco”) was to reply to the request and provide particulars by 27 February 1997. SOS was to file and serve its defence by 13 March 1997. At that stage, SOS was represented by solicitors and counsel.
On 21 March 1997, the matter came before me again when, by consent, I gave directions for the parties to file lists of documents. At that stage the other respondents, Hunter Industrial Services Pty Limited (“Hunter”) and Kevin Mastin (“Mr Mastin”), became involved to a greater extent. On 23 April 1997, I ordered that paragraph 55 of the statement of claim be struck out. That paragraph related to a claim against Mr Mastin. Also on that day I made orders for the provision of security for the costs of Hunter and Mr Mastin.
On 1 May 1997, I ordered that the proceedings against Mr Mastin be dismissed with costs without prejudice to any rights of Conco to bring further proceedings against Mr Mastin. On 5 June 1997, a motion by SOS for security was stood over for hearing to 13 June 1997. On that day there was discussion concerning a proposed amended statement of claim and I ordered Conco to serve, no later than 27 June 1997, any proposed amended statement of claim. The proceedings were stood over to 4 July 1997 and Conco was ordered to pay the costs of that day. In addition, I also ordered Conco to provide security for costs of SOS and that SOS’s costs of the motion for security be SOS’s costs of the proceedings.
On 4 July 1997, I noted that a final statement of claim had been furnished to the respondents and the proceedings were stood over for further mention on 11 July 1997. On that day I gave leave for Conco to join additional defendants including Graham Hubert Smith (“Mr Smith”), Rico Pty Limited (“Rico”) and Dylan Mark Carter (“Mr Carter”). Leave was granted to Conco to file an amended application and an amended statement of claim.
The matter next came before me on 15 August 1997 when I extended the time for SOS and Mr Smith to file and serve their defences to 22 August 1997. Other directions were given in connection with the other respondents including directions for inspection of documents. On 24 October 1997, I gave directions concerning a cross-claim and stood the proceedings over until 5 December 1997. On that day I made further orders for the provision of security by Conco and stood the proceedings over for further directions on 10 February 1998.
On 10 February 1998 and on the following day I heard considerable argument, as a consequence of which, on 11 February 1998, I gave directions for the parties to endeavour to agree on a statement of issues. I also ordered that Conco provide to all respondents by 4.00 pm on 11 March 1998 a document setting out the information said to have been disclosed to any respondent and claimed by Conco to be subject to an obligation of confidence and the time and manner of the disclosure of that information. I also directed Conco to notify SOS and Mr Smith by 25 February 1998 of the claim or claims intended to be pursued against them.
Conco was also directed to file and serve a minute of any amendment sought to be made against SOS and Mr Smith by 24 March 1998. Other directions were given concerning discovery and inspection and for the further pursuit of the proceedings so far as the other respondents were concerned. The proceedings were stood over to 29 April 1998 for further directions.
On 29 April 1998, I gave leave to Conco to make the amendments shown in a minute filed on 24 March 1998 and ordered Conco to pay the costs thrown away by the amendment. I also made elaborate orders and gave directions concerning a document entitled “Details of and relating to the Confidential Information Alleged by the Applicant to be the Subject of an Obligation of Confidence”. That document was directed to be placed in a sealed envelope in the court file which was not to be opened except by leave of the Court. Directions were given for the further conduct of the proceedings, including the extension of time for compliance with directions which I had given on 11 February 1998. The proceedings were stood over to 26 June 1998.
On 16 June 1998, Mr Smith filed a notice of appearance whereby he purported to appear for both SOS and himself. On 26 June 1998, I directed SOS and Mr Smith to make any application for leave for Mr Smith to act on behalf of SOS by notice of motion to be returnable on 31 July 1998. The proceedings were stood over to that day.
On 20 July 1998, the solicitors who had previously appeared filed a notice of withdrawal. On 31 July 1998, the matter was again stood over to 21 August and I gave directions concerning affidavits relating to confidentiality and other motions which had been filed. On 21 August 1998, the matter was again stood over, directions having been given for the further conduct of the proceedings, so far as SOS and Mr Smith were concerned.
On 2 October 1998, I gave leave to Mr Smith pursuant to order 9 rule 1(3) to appear on behalf of SOS for the purposes of the hearing of notices of motion. I also directed Conco to file a consolidated further amended statement of claim incorporating amendments for which leave had been given on 24 March 1998 and 29 April 1998. By that stage Conco had discontinued the proceedings as against all respondents other than SOS and Mr Smith. The consolidated further amended statement of claim was to take account of that discontinuance. I directed SOS and Mr Smith to file a defence to the further amended statement of claim no later than 11 November 1988. The further amended statement of claim was in fact filed on 21 October 1998. On 2 October I also gave directions concerning a dispute which had arisen as to confidentiality and access to documents.
On 7 December 1998, I directed Conco to file and serve affidavits of American witnesses and outlines of evidence of Australian witnesses, together with particulars of documents intended to be relied upon in-chief by 26 February 1999. I directed SOS and Mr Smith to file and serve any evidence in respect of any application for security for costs by 5 March 1999 and stood the proceedings for further directions on 10 March 1999.
On 5 March 1999, Conco filed a notice of motion seeking leave to discontinue the proceedings as against SOS and Mr Smith and an order that there be no order as to costs. On the same day Mr Smith filed a notice of motion seeking summary dismissal of the proceedings. The grounds upon which Mr Smith applied for summary dismissal were at least two-fold. The first ground was the failure by Conco to comply with the direction for the filing of affidavits, outlines of evidence and lists of documents. The second ground, as I understand it, was that the proceeding was doomed to failure.
On 10 and 11 March 1999, I heard argument on the motions. I heard argument at length on behalf of Conco seeking leave to discontinue and an order that there be no order as to costs. In substance, the matter boiled down to the question of whether Conco, not wishing to pursue the matter, should be required to pay the respondents’ costs. Mr Smith, who appeared in person, acknowledged that it was in his interest that the proceedings come to an end. I indicated to him that it would be open to him, if he so wished, to oppose the discontinuance on the basis that he wanted to have his day in Court to vindicate himself and SOS in respect of the allegations which had been made against him. I indicated to him that if he wished to oppose the leave, otherwise than in relation to the question of costs, then he would be entitled to have the matter brought on but that in doing so he would run the risk that he might ultimately be unsuccessful and could incur liability for costs over and above the liabilities which have already been incurred.
For reasons which I will now indicate, I have concluded that leave should be given to discontinue the proceedings. However, I indicated in the course of argument that I would only be disposed to do so on terms that Conco would consent to an order for the costs of the proceedings and would undertake not to bring any further claim against SOS and Mr Smith based on the allegations made in the further amended statement of claim. The matter was adjourned to enable counsel for Conco to obtain instructions on that question.
In order to explain the view which I have formed in that regard, it is necessary to consider the evidence filed in support of the notice of motion and also to consider, in general terms, the nature of the claims made in the further amended statement of claim. I shall deal with the latter first. There are two broad heads of claim made in the further amended statement of claim. The first concerns alleged interference by SOS and Mr Smith with the contractual relations between Conco on the one hand and Hunter, Rico and Mr Carter on the other hand. The second relates to a patent application lodged by SOS and Mr Smith in relation to cleaners.
The statement of claim alleges that at all material times Mr Smith and SOS were aware or ought to have been aware of certain agreements which Conco had entered into with Rico, Hunter and Mr Carter. The allegations then proceed generally as follows.
1.Each of Mr Smith and SOS wrongfully and with intent to injure Conco, induced and procured:
· Rico to breach an agreement between Rico and Conco;
· Hunter to breach various agreements between Hunter and Conco; and
· Mr Carter to breach an agreement between Conco and Mr Carter.
2.By reason of the inducement and procurement of each of Mr Smith and SOS:
· Rico breached the Rico Agreement;
· Hunter breached the Hunter Agreements; and
· Mr Carter breached the Carter Agreement.
The breaches relate, almost exclusively, but not entirely, to alleged disclosure and use of confidential information said to have been furnished by Conco to Rico, Hunter and Mr Carter. Rico and Hunter had been parties to agreements with Conco whereby they distributed Conco’s products in Australia. Conco alleged that, in connection with those agreements, it disclosed confidential information to Rico and Hunter. Mr Carter was employed by Conco for some time and it was alleged that, in the course of that employment, confidential information was also disclosed to Mr Carter.
The general allegation is that SOS and Mr Smith were the recipients of confidential information from Hunter, Rico and Mr Carter disclosed in breach of confidence. That information was alleged to have been used by SOS in the manufacture of tube cleaners which were then to be sold in competition with tube cleaners manufactured by Conco. At no stage has there been any express particularisation of the communication to Mr Smith or SOS of confidential information. Conco's case in that regard has been based entirely on circumstantial evidence and inferences.
For example, the statement of claim alleges that, in breach of the Rico Agreement, Rico:
(a)disclosed to SOS and Mr Smith information relating to the design, manufacture, application and performance characteristics of Conco products which was confidential information;
(b)by disclosing to Mr Smith and SOS that information, Rico did not treat as confidential all information, reports and technical information which was regarded by Conco as confidential.
The statement of claim particularises the alleged disclosure to SOS and Mr Smith as follows:
(1) Mr Smith is a director of SOS;
(2)On 17 May 1991, Mr Smith made an application for a patent (“the patent application”). The tube cleaner referred to in the specification for the patent application (“the patent specification”) was significantly different from tube cleaners manufactured by Conco.
(3) On or shortly after 10 August 1994 Mr Smith filed an amended application.
(4)On 7 October 1994 Mr Smith made an application for the registration of a design under the Designs Act 1906 in respect of a tube cleaner (“the design application”).
(5)By letter of 25 October 1994 to Conco, Messrs Chrysiliou Moore Chrysiliou, solicitors then acting on behalf of SOS, sought information as to Conco's patent and other monopoly rights in respect of C3S and C4S cleaners;
(6)By letter dated 28 October 1994 to Messrs Myer Unkovic & Scott, attorneys for Conco, Chrysiliou Moore Chrysiliou advised that in the absence of advice as to Conco’s registered monopoly rights in relation to C3S and C4S cleaners, SOS and Mr Smith would have no option but to assume that there was no registered monopoly rights and, provided that their client was not in breach of any confidential information belonging to Conco, their client would be free to use any of the features of the C3S and C4S cleaners without hindrance.
(7)Mr Smith and SOS entered into an agreement whereby Mr Smith licensed SOS to manufacture the tube cleaner referred to in the patent specification and the design application.
(8)SOS manufactured or caused to be manufactured a tube cleaner or tube cleaners, pursuant to that agreement.
(9)The tube cleaner referred to in the patent specification and the design application is substantially similar to the tube cleaners manufactured by Conco.
(10)In or about between June 1993 to the end of January 1995, Hunter tested tube cleaners manufactured or caused to be manufactured by SOS on site when using Conco products to clean condensers and heat exchangers of customers.
(11)Hunter provided a die for the manufacture of the tail piece of the SOS tube cleaner.
(12)On 7 December 1994, Hunter informed Messrs George Saxon Jr and Edward Saxon of Conco that Hunter planned to become the distributor of tube cleaners manufactured by SOS.
(13)On 17 February 1995, SOS, Hunter and Rico entered into a deed whereby SOS appointed Hunter and Rico as its sole distributor in Australia and the United Kingdom of the tube cleaners referred to above, which had been manufactured by SOS.
(14)From 17 February 1995 to the termination of the agreement between Hunter and SOS, Hunter sold tube cleaners manufactured or caused to be manufactured by SOS and used tube cleaners manufactured or caused to be manufactured by SOS to clean condensers and heat exchangers of customers within Australia.
Those facts are probably for the most part not disputed. The general thrust of Conco’s case as formulated in the amended statement of claim is that an inference should be drawn from those facts that, Hunter and Rico disclosed to Mr Smith and SOS, information which they had obtained from Conco. There has now been discovery - although it may be that discovery has not yet been full and complete. Further, the proceedings have been resolved as between Conco, on the one hand, and Hunter, Rico and Mr Carter on the other hand, by discontinuance. Nevertheless, there have been no further particulars furnished of the circumstances in which confidential information is alleged to have been disclosed to Mr Smith and SOS.
In support of its notice of motion for leave to discontinue, Conco relied on an affidavit of its solicitor, Mr Andrew Sutherland, sworn on 9 March 1999. The general thrust of the affidavit was designed to demonstrate that Conco had acted reasonably in the commencement and prosecution of the proceedings as against SOS and Mr Smith. It is significant, however, that there has been no evidence from Mr Saxon or any other officer of Conco, concerning the decision to commence the proceedings and to prosecute them.
I rejected some parts of the affidavit concerning the instructions which he had been given, but gave leave for Mr Sutherland to supplement his affidavit by oral evidence. Mr Sutherland said that he had discussions with Mr Saxon in 1996. Mr Saxon told him that Conco had had an exclusive distribution arrangement in Australia with Rico and Hunter and that a short time after termination of that agreement, Mr Saxon saw a cleaner which was a copy of Conco’s cleaner. Mr Saxon told Mr Sutherland that the copy could not have been reverse engineered. Mr Sutherland subsequently received a package of background information from solicitors who had, up until that time, been acting for Conco. The documents included copies of agreements between Conco, Rico and Hunter and information concerning disclosures to Mr Carter.
Mr Sutherland was told by Mr Saxon, prior to commencement of the proceedings, that more than one report had been prepared in the United States relating to the SOS cleaner and the Rico cleaner, which was alleged to be a modification of the Conco cleaner. Copies of those reports were subsequently tendered. It is significant that neither of those reports makes any reference to reverse engineering. Indeed, the reports suggest that the concern which Conco had, when it became aware of the SOS cleaners, was that there was an infringement of patent rights. Conco in fact has no Australian patent rights.
There was no suggestion in either of the reports, which were prepared by Mr Saxon Jr, that it would not be possible to reverse engineer the cleaners in question. That casts some doubt on the credibility of Mr Saxon in relation to the instructions which he gave to Mr Sutherland. Naturally of course it is not for me to resolve those matters finally in this proceeding, but it does leave me with some disquiet.
Mr Sutherland said that he gave advice to Mr Saxon prior to the commencement of the proceedings but could not recall whether the advice was oral or written. He also said that on 23 October 1996 he had a conference with a Mr Broadbent and Mr Ferguson, concerning the matter and made a file note of that conference. The file note, however, has not been tendered. I have no information concerning the precise instructions that were given in connection with the commencement of the proceedings. In the course of his evidence, Mr Sutherland did say that advice had been sought as to whether the cleaner could be reverse engineered and that reports were obtained. However, these reports were not tendered in connection with this application.
Reliance was placed by Conco, in support of its contention that it was reasonable for the proceedings to have been commenced and prosecuted, on correspondence which had been produced on discovery by SOS and the other respondents when they were parties. For example, in February 1993, SOS wrote to Hunter referring to Mr Smith's recent visit to Hunter’s works and to subsequent discussions. The letter said:
“Please be assured that it is my intention to give your company the sole distributorship for Australasia and the UK. Please be advised that as sole distributor for an area the sole distributor would be required to take action against another party who breaches or tries to breach the patent by manufacture or importation from another country. The USA is another country where you have considerable influence through your present suppliers, Conco Systems. I am sure that a mutually satisfactory agreement could be arranged.”
In September 1993 SOS wrote to the manager of the Pacific Power Plant on the topic of tube cleaning. The letter said inter alia:
“Hunter Valley have [sic] been appointed the Australian and UK distributors for the SOS bullets. While Hunter are the Australian agents for the Conco cleaning method, they appreciate the importance of maintaining optimum plant performance by efficient interim cleaning.”
In December 1994, Mr Smith on behalf of SOS wrote to Mr Mastin saying inter alia:
“Regarding Conco, I reiterate that I see them at present as hostile adversaries and I would prefer that you told them absolutely nothing. However, as you wish to protect yourselves from your competition and as you have no formalised agreement with my company I would prefer that you told them:
(1)That I have approached you and offered bullets at less than half the price of Conco bullets (with no mention of phosphor bronze or plastic).
(2)That I have done some testing with Pacific Power with satisfactory results.
(3)That the SOS bullet has some novel design and that the design is registered and therefore will be protected in the USA and other countries.
(4)That the bullets are for Australian use only at this stage and are not to be shipped overseas.”
On 17 February 1995, an agreement was entered into between SOS, Hunter and Rico whereby SOS appointed Hunter and Rico as sole distributors to sell SOS’s products in Australia and the United Kingdom. The agreement contained clause 7 as follows:
“SOS is aware that Hunter and Rico UK is a distributor for Conco tube bullets. SOS will retain Hunter and Rico as the sole distributor in respect of the products in the Territory and will not appoint any other distributor for the Territory in respect of the products for as long as:
(1)Hunter and Rico does not distribute any tube cleaner product other than the products. If nominated by a specification that Conco tube bullets must be supplied and no equivalent SOS product can be utilised and Hunter and Rico can supply the Conco tube bullets.
(2)SOS expects that Hunter and Rico to terminate [sic] their agreement with Conco prior to the commencement of the second year of this agreement.
(3)Hunter and Rico does not manufacture or cause to be manufactured any tube cleaner product which competes with the products.”
In addition, Conco referred to a letter of October 1991 from SOS to Hunter saying as follows:
“It is now seven months since my last letter to your company. During this time Kevin Mastin and I have developed a close working relationship and his work in testing and his suggestions for the improvement of performance are appreciated.
………………………………
So that the manufacture and marketing can proceed with a positive outlook and with minimal delays due to uncertain user appreciation, my bullets require to be tested by an independent organisation and the results compared to various other devices including Conco Tube Brushes and Conco Steel Bullets.
………………………………
The power stations that do not want to use Conco steel bullets may have to delay their cleans until the end of January if they are to use my plastic bullets. So that I may control my monetary resources I require to know your estimate of purchase numbers of plastic bullets for Australia and UK for the year following usage approval from any one power station. With receipt of these numbers I will then finalise the agreement documents. I thank [sic] for your patience and co-operation.”
That correspondence and the agreement are relied on by Conco as supporting the contention that an inference should be drawn that there was a disclosure of confidential information by Hunter. As I have said, it is not for me to reach any conclusion concerning the matters which would be raised on the hearing of the proceedings. However, it may be that the material relied upon could be characterised as equivocal. After a trial, of course, the position may well be very different. By the time relevant witnesses had given evidence and been cross-examined it may well be that the Court will be satisfied, one way or the other, either that there had been a disclosure information or that there had not.
Conco advanced as the justification for its discontinuance at this stage a “commercial” decision not to proceed because of two factors. First it was said that because Mr Smith is appearing in person and there is no guarantee that he will have legal representation for the trial, there was a concern that it may be necessary for there to be disclosure to Mr Smith, personally, of the information which it is alleged has already been disclosed to him.
There is a certain oddity about that approach. On the one hand, Conco contends that there has been disclosure to Mr Smith and SOS. On the other hand, Conco has been at great pains to ensure that the information which it is alleged has been disclosed is not disclosed to Mr Smith. That rather suggests that Conco has some reservations as to whether or not it would ultimately be able to make out the case which has been alleged.
Secondly, it is said that, in connection with the earlier application before me for Mr Smith to represent SOS, the financial position of SOS and Mr Smith was disclosed indicating that even if Conco succeeded in obtaining an order for damages there may be some doubt as to whether the damages would be recoverable. I have, however, seen no information at all as to the extent of the damages claimed. That is not necessarily a criticism of Conco because the proceeding has not reached that stage. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that damages which would be recoverable by Conco would not ultimately be recovered from SOS and Mr Smith if they were found liable.
As I have indicated earlier, the second broad cause of action alleged in the further amended statement of claim relates to the patent application and the design application. Conco seeks revocation of the patent granted to Mr Smith and SOS and also seeks rectification of the register of designs and the cancellation of the registration of the registered design in favour of Mr Smith. Those matters, of course, have absolutely nothing to do with the disclosure of confidential information, nor do they have anything to do with the inability of the respondents to meet any order for damages. Nevertheless, Conco has indicated that it does not wish to proceed with those matters.
In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that leave should be given for Conco to discontinue the proceedings. However, I am not prepared to make an order that there be no order as to costs. Counsel for Conco placed reliance on the decision of McHugh J in Re Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 143 ALR 1 and also on my decision in Vizl v Fehon (unreported, 15 May 1998. Emmett J). Those decisions were both concerned, however, with the issue of costs in a situation where there was no longer any utility in pursuing the proceedings. The principle was stated by McHugh J at 3:
“If it appears that both parties have acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings and the conduct of the parties continued to be reasonable until the litigation was settled or its further prosecution became futile, the proper exercise of the cost discretion will usually mean that the court will make no order as to the cost of the proceeding.” [emphasis added]
That is not the situation in the case before me now. Here, Conco has simply decided for reasons of its own that it does not wish to go on. The principle in Lai Qin and Vizl does not, therefore, apply. I am satisfied that leave should be given to Conco to discontinue but only on the terms which I have foreshadowed.
So far as Mr Smith’s application is concerned, I am not satisfied that if Conco wished to prosecute the proceedings, I would have intervened to dismiss them summarily. While there was a failure to comply with the directions which I gave in December 1998, I do have before me correspondence which passed between the parties from that time concerning possible settlement of the proceedings. While settlement discussions do not necessarily excuse the parties from complying with directions, I am satisfied that the failure to comply with the directions was not in any way contumelious or indicative of reluctance to comply with the directions. Accordingly, but for the application for leave to discontinue, I would have excused the failure to comply with directions, subject to appropriate orders as to costs.
The other ground relied on by Mr Smith, is, in effect, that the proceedings were ultimately doomed to failure. However, I do not consider that it is possible for me to embark on a consideration of those questions without a hearing of the proceedings on the merits. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss Mr Smith’s motion for summary dismissal of Conco’s claims.
The orders I now propose to make would not affect any orders already made in relation to costs. However, where costs have been reserved, then those costs would be covered by the order which I propose to make. The orders which I therefore propose are:
1.I order that the notice of motion of the second respondent of 5 March 1999 be dismissed.
2.I give leave to the applicant to discontinue the proceedings.
3.I note the undertaking given to the court by the applicant not to make any further claim against SOS or Mr Smith based on the matters which are the subject of the further amended statement of claim.
4.I order the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings up to and including today.
I certify that the preceding forty (40) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate:
Dated: 16 March 1999
Counsel for the Applicant:
S.T. White
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Eakin McCaffery Cox
The First Respondent was represented by the Second Respondent.
The Second Respondent appeared in person
Date of Hearing:
11 March 1999; 16 March 1999
Date of Judgment:
16 March 1999
0