Dunlop Olympic Ltd v Trade Practices Commission

[1981] FCA 112

I -,

I N THE FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTRALIA	)
1

VICTORIA	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	V.G.	N o .	125 of	1980
1

GENERAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN :

DUNLOP OLYMPIC LIMITED

and K . G. NORRISH A p p l i c a n t s

and

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

and RONALD SOLLEY GILBERT R e s p o n d e n t s

ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	Northrop J.
DATE OF ORDER:	20 Ju ly 1 9 8 1

WHERE MADE: Melbourne

THE COURT ORDERS TYAT:

The applicatlon is dismissed w i t h costs.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 V.G. No. 125 of 1980
)
GENERAL DIVISION	1
BETWEEN:

DUNLOP OLYMPIC LIMITED

and K . G . NORRISH

App l i can t s

and

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

and RONALD SOLLEY GILBERT

Respondents

NORTHROP J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 20 JULY 1981.

Dunlop Olympic L td . (here inaf te r ca l led "Dunlop")

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

"Norr i sh") is now and a t a l l m a t e r i a l times was employed by

Dunlop as t h e g e n e r a l manager i n its B a t t e r i e s D i v i s i o n . a y

n o t i c e d a t e d 2 7 A u g u s t 1 9 8 0 t h e s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t

( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d " t h e d e p u t y c h a i r m a n " ) , i n t h e e x e r c i s e

of powers conferred by s.155 Trade Practices Act 1 9 7 4 ( " t h e

A c t " ) r e q u i r e d Dunlop t o f u r n i s h t o t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s

Commission ( " t h e C o m m i s s i o n " ) , i n w r i t i n g , s p e c i f i e d

informat ion and t o produce documents re la t ing t o matters t h a t

c o n s t i t u t e or may c o n s t i t u t e c o n t r a v e n t i o n s of s . 4 5 o f t h e

Act by Dunlop and o t h e r manufac turers . A n o t i c e d a t e d 7

- 2 -

August 1 9 8 0 i n s i m i l a r fo rm l i kewise r equ i r ed Nor r i sh t o

f u r n i s h s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n and to p roduce s imi la r documents

r e l a t i n g t o t h e same m a t t e r s .

Dunlop and Nor r i sh a r e s eek ing o rde r s unde r s.163A

o f t he Act. The p l e a d i n g s r a i s e a number of issues. One

i s s u e i s whether Dunlop and Norr ish lawful ly can be required

t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s , p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n o r t o p r o d u c e

documents which may tend to expose them o r e i t h e r o f them t o

a pena l ty . Counse l fo r t he app l i can t r e f e r r ed t o Me lbourne

Home of Ford P ty . L td v . . Trade Prac t ices Commission ( 1 9 7 9 )

3 6 F.L.R. P r a c t i c e s Commission 450 and Melbourne Home of Ford P ty . L td v . . Trade

( N O . 3 ) ( 1 9 8 0 ) 31 A.L.R. 519. He

conceded t h a t h o s e d e c i s i o n s bound t h e c o u r t as p r e s e n t l y

c o n s t i t u t e d . H e r e f e r r e d a l s o t o The King Associated v.

Northern Co l l i e r i e s ( 1 9 1 0 ) 11 C.L.R. 738 and t o t h e n a t u r e o f

submiss ions based on tha t au thor i ty . He d e s i r e d t o p r o t e c t

t h e r i g h t s fo rma l ly of h i s c l i e n t s i f t h e m a t t e r w e n t f u r t h e r . I

re ject h i s u b m i s s i o n s i n r e s p e c t of t h i s issue.

L i k e w i s e , I fo rma l ly re jec t h i s u b m i s s i o n s i n r e s p e c t o f

i s s u e s r a i s e d i n p a r a g r a p h s 1 0 , 11 and 1 2 o f t he s t a t emen t o f

claim r e l a t i n g t o t h e ex i s t ence o f t he cond i t ion p receden t

r equ i r ed be fo re g iv ing t he no t i ces unde r s . 155 of t h e A c t ,

hav ing r ega rd t o the au tho r i t i e s a l r eady men t ioned and i n

addi t ion having regard to Melbourne Home of Ford Pty. Ltd. v .

T r a d e P r a c t i c e s Commission (No. 2 ) ( 1 9 7 9 ) 4 0 F.L.R. 428 and

W.A. P ines P ty . L td . v . Bannerman ( 1 9 8 0 ) 4 1 F.L.R. 175 and t o

- 3 -

t h e f a c t t h a t no evidence w a s l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

conta ined i n those paragraphs .

The issues t h a t c a l l f o r d e c i s i o n are r a i s e d by

paragraphs 13 , 14, 15 and 1 6 of t h e s t a t emen t of c la im. In

subs t ance , t h e a p p l i c a n t s c l a i m t h a t t h e n o t i c e s a r e i n w h o l e

or i n par t vexa t ious , oppress ive , unreasonable , too wide ,

u n c e r t a i n and ambiguous , inqui re in to mat te rs o f l aw or

r e q u i r e t h e making of judgment on a ques t ion of l aw or

r e q u i r e the fu rn i sh ing o f i n fo rma t ion and the p roduct ion of

documen t s wh ich do no t r e l a t e t o ma t t e r s which formed p a r t o f

t h e belief c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t .

The informat ion requi red t o be g iven is e x t e n s i v e .

I t is sought in ten separa te paragraphs each conta in ing a

number of sub-paragraphs and extending over seven pages of

typ ing . Counse l for the appl icants express ly d i d n o t r e l y o n

submissions t h a t t h e volume of information sought of i t s e l f

made t h e r e l a t i n g t o t h a t m a t t e r . n o t i c e o p p r e s s i v e , s i n c e no evidence was c a l l e d

The n o t i c e s e e k s i n f o r m a t i o n by means of a s e t of

q u e s t i o n s similar t o h o s e bf t o u n d i n a c a r e f u l l y

prepared and e ta i ied se t of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . The c a s e was

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

themselves and the formal dmissions of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

con ta ined i n pa rag raphs 1 - 8 of the s ta tement of c la im. The

- 4 -

c a s e was a rgued be fo re the cour t on t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o n t e n t s

of t h e n o t i c e s and whether, from a cons ide ra t ion o f t h c - i r

c o n t e n t s , t h e n o t i c e s i n f a c t or any pa r t o f them were

i n v a l i d by reason of any one or more of t h e r e a s o n s set o u t

i n pa rag raphs 13 , 1 4 , 15 and 16 of t h e s t a t e m e n t of c la im.

I f t h e a p p l i c a n t s s u c c e e d e d , it was assumed o r d e r s would be

made r e l i e v i n g t h e m o f t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n t o g i v e t h e

informat ion or produce documents which d id no t cons t i tu te a

v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f t h e power confe r r ed by s.155 of the Act.

The n a t u r e o f t h e power confe r r ed by s .155 of the

Act is d i s c u s s e d a t l e n g t h i n t h e M e l b o u r n e Home of Ford case

(No. 3 )	a t	pp.528-529.	The	i s s u e	r a i s e d	i n	t h e	p r e s e n t	c a s e
is :

" ( 3 ) whether t h e i n fo rma t ion r equ i r ed t o be

f u r n i s h e d , t h e d o c u m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o b e

produced . .. r e l a t e s t o t h a t m a t t e r . " ( p . 5 2 9 )

The m a t t e r r e f e r r e d t o is t h e m a t t e r w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s o r may

c o n s t i t u t e a c o n t r a v e n t i o n by Dunlop and o the r manufac tu re r s

of s.45 of t h e Act.

The power i s i n v e s t i g a t i v e i n n a t u r e , a l m o s t

i n q u i s i t o r i a l . The l i m i t i n g f a c t o r is t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

r e q u i r e d t o be furn ished or the documents to be produced m u s t

a n s w e r t h e d s c r i p t i o n " i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o " r

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

- 6 -

o t h e r f a c t s which have a more immediate 2nd

p r o x i m a t e r l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e matter under

i n v e s t i g a t i o n . "

La te r on t h e same page and on p .531 the cour t sa id :

" T h e c o u r t c a n n o t u n d e r t a k e t h e t a s k o f

de te rmining the way i n which an inves t iga t ion

should be c a r r i e d o u t , f o r t h a t i s a t a s k

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

Commiss ion , t he Cha i rman t he D o r pu ty

Chairman. The c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n is n o t o

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

a h a l t exceeds i f it is shown t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

t he powers con fe r r ed . Shor t o f t ha t

p o i n t , t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c o r p o r a t e

c i t i z e n f r o m h a r a s s m e n t r e s t s i nh e good

sense o f the repos i tory o f the power . To s a y

t h a t a n undue or oppressive burden is imposed

by a n o t i c e is n o t l e g a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t u n l e s s

what is meant i s tha t the powers confer red by

S 155 have	been	exceeded	i n	t h e	p a r t i c u l a r
case.

An excess o f power may a p p e a r i f t h e

requi rement for in format ion or documents i s

couched in such wide and general terms t h a t a

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

could not suppor t t h e r equ i r emen t i n ques t ion .

This is b u t a p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e

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

d i s c r e t i o n a r y power m u s t be reasonably capable

of being regarded as r e l a t e d t o t h e p u r p o s e

f o r which t h e power i s confer red ( see , g

A l l e n C o m m e r c i a i C o n s t r u c t i o n s P t y L t d v:

North Sydney Municipal Council ( 1 9 7 0 ) 123 CLR

490 : .~ 119711 ALR 201). ,~ t h e r e a u i r e m e n t I f a

expressed in a p a r t i c u l a r n o t i c e is reasonably

capable of being so r e g a r d e d , t h a t g r o u n d f o r

a l leg ing an excess of power fa i l s . "

In deve lop ing h i s submiss ions , counse l fo r t h e

a p p l i c a n t s s t a t e d i n summary form the pr inc ip les he contended

should be applied:

- 7 -

1. The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d m u s t r e l a t e t o a r e l e v a n t

ma t t e r . Th i s is accepted.

2 . If t h e in fo rma t ion r equ i r ed is too wide i n t h a t it

r e l a t e s t o m a t t e r s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e r e l e v a n t m a t t e r ,

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

S u b j e c t t o w h a t h a s b e e n s a i d a s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e

n a t u r e of t h e p o w e r , t h i s is accepted.

3 . The r ec ip i en t o f t he no t i ce canno t be compe l l ed t o ac t

as a d e t e c t i v e t o p e r f o r m t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e

Commonwealth. He r e l i e d upon opin ions expressed by

Ackner J. in Clinch v. Inland Revenue Commissioners

119741 Q.B. 76 a t pp.92-4 under t h e h e a r i n g "Has t h e

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

burdensome or oppress ive?" . In the absence o f ev idence

it is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h i s matter f u r t h e r .

4 . If t h e r e c i p i e n t i s a body c o r p o r a t e it is no t ob l iged

t o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e knowledge of i t s s e r v a n t s o r

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

s e r v a n t s or a g e n t s i n t h e course of t h e i r employment by

t h e body c o r p o r a t e .

I n s u p p o r t o f t h e f o u r t h p r i n c i p l e , c o u n s e l r e l i e d upon views

e x p r e s s e d i n S m i t h K l i n e & F r e n c h L a b o r a t o r i e s L t d . v .

I n t e r - C o n t i n e n t a l P h a r m e c u t i c a l s ( A u s t r a l i a ) P t y . L t d . ( 1 9 6 9 )

- 8 -

123 C.L.R. 514. T h a t c a s e c o n c e r n e d a n i t e r r o g a t o r y

summons. Even i n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , where t h e issues have been

i d e n t i f i e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s , a w i d e l a t t i t u d e is a l lowed, see

fo r example , pe r Windeye r J. a t p. 521-4. Where an

i n v e s t i g a t i v e power is be ing exe rc i sed , a g r e a t e r l a t t i t u d e

is presumably given. Information given may l ead t o f u r t h e r

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

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

cons ide ra t ions app ly conce rn ing the admiss ib i l i t y a s ev idence

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

l i t i g a t i o n s u b s e q u e n t l y commenced. I have doubts whether a

similar p r i n c i p l e is t o b e a p p l i e d i n c a s e s s u c h a s t h i s , b u t

in any event i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e is no ev idence t o

support submissions based on t h i s f o u r t h p r i n c i p l e .

I p r o p o s e t o a p p l y t h e p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e

Melbourne Home of Ford case (No. 3 ) .

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e m a t t e r s t h a t a r e b e i n g

i n v e s t i g a t e d a r e t h e matters t h a t c o n s t i t u t e o r may

c o n s t i t u t e c o n t r a v e n t i o n s o f s.45 of the Act , namely tha t

Dunlop	and	ce r t a in	o the r	manufac tu re r s	have	s ince	1	J u l y
1977:

“ ( a ) made a r r a n g e m e n t s a r r i v e d o r a t

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

t h a t have t h e p u r p o s e o r e f f e c t ( o r

l i k e l y e f f e c t ) o f f i x i n g , c o n t r o l l i n g o r

main ta in ing -

- 9 -

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

a l l o w a n c e , r e b a t e o r c r e d i t i n

r e l a t i o n t o , t h e goods suppl ied by

s a i d p a r t i e s t h e t h e t o

arrangement or understanding, o r

by any bod ie s co rpora t e t ha t a r e

r e l a t e d a n y t h e m , t o o f i n

compet i t ion with each other ; and

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

a l l o w a n c e , r e b a t e o r c r e d i t i n

r e l a t i o n t o , a re -supply o f the

goods by d e a l e r s b e i n g p e r s o n s t o

whom t h e goods a re suppl ied by t h e

p a r t i e s t o t h e said arrangement o r

unde r s t and ing , o r by any bodies

c o r p o r a t e t h a t a r e r e l a t e d t o a n y

of them; and

( b ) g i v e n e f f e c t t o p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e k i n d

r e f e r r e d t o i n ( a ) ( i ) and (ii) above."

The n o t i c e g i v e n t o Norr i sh widens the mat te rs by r e f e r e n c e

t o h i m h a v i n g b e e n d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , k n o w i n g l y

conce rned in those con t r aven t ions .

The r e l e v a n t g o o d s a r e d e f i n e d t o mean "replacement

l ead -ac id au tomot ive ba t t e r i e s o f any vo l t age" ; manufac tu re r

i s d e f i n e d t o mean "any person whose b u s i n e s s a t a n y t i m e

s ince 1 J u l y 1 9 7 7 has inc luded t h e manufacture i n A u s t r a l i a

of any of the goods" ; and ea le r is de f ined t o mean "any

p e r s o n i n Australia whose b u s i n e s s a t a n y t i m e s i n c e 1 J u l y

1977 has inc luded the re -supply , by way of sale , of any of

the goods i n c l u d e suppl ied by any manufac turer . These def in i t ions

l i m i t a t i o n s upon the wide- ranging na ture o f the

information sought .

- 10 -

I t is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o se t o u t e a c h q u e s t i o n i n

f u l l . No o b j e c t i o n i s taken t o Ques t ion 1 which seeks

informat ion concern ing each pos i t ion he ld by Norr i sh wi th

Dunlop between 1 J u l y 1 9 7 7 and t h e d a t e o f t h e n o t i c e .

Q u e s t i o n 2 s e e k s d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o h i s

f u n c t i o n s or d u t i e s d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and i n p a r t i c u l a r i n

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

supp l i ed by Dunlop. Counsel f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t s a r g u e d t h a t

the in format ion sought was t o o w i d e i n t h a t it was n o t

l i m i t e d t o p o s i t i o n s , t h e d u t i e s o f which were or could be

r e l a t e d t o t h e r e l e v a n t m a t t e r . The submission is r e j e c t e d .

The informat ion sought is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e m a t t e r s

be ing i nves t iga t ed by t h e Commission a d i s i n t h e power

confer red by s.155 of the Act .

Ques t ion 3 i s very wide. I t seeks in format ion on

whether any representat ive of Dunlop a t tended a s p e c i f i e d

meeting in Sydney between representat ives of manufacturers or

any o ther meet ing s ince 1 J u l y 1977 a t w h i c h any person, used

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

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

r e l e v a n t t o t h e matters t h e s u b j e c t of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

The ques t ions asked m u s t be unders tood in a commercial sense

and as they would be understood by t h e r e c i p i e n t s b e i n g

persons engaged i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y . A s

was s a i d by t h e cour t in the Melbourne Home of Ford case (No.

- 3 ) a t p.531:

- 11 -

"The argument m u s t be eva lua ted accord ing to

the meaning r e c i p i e n t . which the not ices would convey t o

t h e The n o t i c e s s t h e e k

f u r n i s h i n g of commercial information, and t h e

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

m a t t e r s i n respect of which information i s

sough t . No t i ces a r e t o be reasonably , n o t

p rec ious ly , cons t rued and t h e terms used i n

n o t i c e s w i l l o r d i n a r i l y t a k e t h e i r m e a n i n g

from the commerc ia l c i rcumstances in which the

n o t i c e s a r e g i v e n . I f , i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

i n which a n a p p l i c a n t was t r a d i n g when it

r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e , t h e n o t i c e d i d not convey

a r e q u i r e m e n t w h i c h l a y w i t h i n t h e p o w e r

c o n f e r r e d b y s . 1 5 5 , i t w a s o p e n t o t h a t

a p p l i c a n t so t o show. B u t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f

t h a t e v i d e n c e , t h e requi rements are t o be

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

a t the beg inn ing o f t he no t i ce , .. ."

Ques t ion 3 , c o n s t r u e d i n t h i s m a n n e r , r e f e r s t o t h e

possible conduct of Dunlop and Norrish to which a n o t i c e is

addressed being t h e f a c t s and c i rcumstances cons t i tu t ing the

matters i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e . The word " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e "

i n t h i s con tex t is not oo wide . It is d i r e c t e d t o a person

a c t i n g on behalf of Dunlop discussing w i t h p e r s o n s a c t i n g on

b e h a l f of o t h e r m a n u f a c t u r e r s f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s

d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e matters i d e n t i f i e d i n the n o t i c e . On

i t s f a c e t h e r e l e v a n t p e r i o d of time extends from 1 J u l y 1 9 7 7

t o t h e time the i n fo rma t ion is g i v e n , b u t i n my o p i n i o n t h a t

d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e e x e r c i s e of any excess of power by t h e

Commission. T h i s is a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Commission being

carried o u t p u r s u a n t o t h e v e r y wide powers conferred by

s.155 of t h e Act. I t was s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e in format ion

sough t was no t l i m i t e d t o m a n u f a c t u r e r s who were in

- 12 -

competi t ion. The Commission may be s eek ing i n fo rma t ion a s t o

t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l e v a n t m a r k e t f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f s . 4 5 o f

t h e Act and it is n o t f o r t h i s c o u r t t o d e c i d e i s s u e s o f t h a t

kind i n the absence of vidence of what i s t h e r e l e v a n t

market. Nor i n f a c t is it a lways necessary for marke ts to be

def ined for the purposes of s.155. The information sought by

Question 3	i s n o t	i n	e x c e s s o f	t h e	powers	conferred	upon	t h e
Commission.

Ques t ion 4 is dependent upon an affirmative answer

t o p a r t o f Q u e s t i o n 3 . Ques t ion 3 forms par t o f a v a l i d

e x e r c i s e o f power by t h e Commission and t h e r e f o r e t h e a t t a c k

on Ques t ion 4 , i n s o f a r a s i t is based on Question 3 , f a i l s .

A f u r t h e r a t t a c k was based on a p a r t o f Q u e s t i o n 4 , 4 ( f ) ,

which seeks information on whether a t any such meeting a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Dunlop s a i d , o r h e a r d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f

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

c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l a t e d t o t h e m a t t e r s t h e s u b j e c t of t h e

not ice . It was a r g u e d t h a t t h i s c o u l d r e f e r t o p r i v a t e

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

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I n my o p i n i o n t h i s is w i t h i n t h e power of

t h e Commission and may l ead t o f u r t h e r n o t i c e s b e i n g g i v e n

depending upon the in format ion rece ived . L ikewise , Ques t ion

4 ( g ) , i n seeking in format ion about any dec is ion or consensus

a r r i v e d a t by t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , is wi th in t h e power o f t he

Commission.

L

- 13 -

Ques t ion 5 re la tes to communica t ions which may have

passed be tween representa t ives o f Dunlop and representa t ives

of o t h e r m a n u f a c t u r e r s r e l a t i n g t o t h o s e m e e t i n g s , .F0 r

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

Ques t ion 5 f a i l s . L i k e w i s e , a t t a c k s on Q u e s t i o n s 7 , 8 , 9 and

10 f a i l .

In t h e r e s u l t , t h e a p p l i c a n t s f a i l i n t h e i r c l a i m

and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h c o s t s .

.

.- - __*.

I

f I certify that this and the TwELwZ

' ' preceding pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of the

. Honourable Mr. Justice NORWROF,.

Associate

L Dated: 20 JULY \g81

_. _ _ ̂ _...