King v Ag Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) - [2003] FCA 1420

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) [2003] FCA 1420
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – representative proceedings under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – determination of the final membership of the group – where proceeding has settled.
SHANE ROBERT KING v AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED (formerly GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD) (ACN 054 573 401)
N 955 OF 1999
MOORE J
5 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD (formerly GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD) (ACN 054 573 401)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The Sixth Further Amended Application and the Eighth Further Amended Statement of Claim be amended to provide that the group members to whom the proceeding relates within the meaning of s 33H of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) be the final list of identified group members annexed to these reasons.

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

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD (formerly GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD) (ACN 054 573 401)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction

On 26 August 2003 I approved a settlement between Mr King (“the applicant”) and the first respondent, AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) (“GIO”). While the settlement resolved most issues between the parties, it did not finally resolve which of all the former shareholders of GIO would receive compensation from the settlement fund established as a result of the settlement. These reasons deal with the issue of which former shareholders will participate in the settlement. Why it is necessary for the issue to be considered by the Court will be apparent shortly. Reasons for the approval of the settlement were published on 17 September 2003: see [2003] FCA 980. It is convenient to repeat some of the background leading to the settlement in the way in which it was described in those reasons. The settlement scheme is annexure “A” to these reasons.
The settlement was of a representative proceeding the applicant had commenced on 31 August 1999 against GIO, an adviser to that company, and its directors. The proceeding was brought under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). On 8 September 2003 I made orders effectively disposing of the proceeding concerning the other respondents and also orders dealing with cross-claims involving both the original respondents and third parties. All the orders have been made by consent.
The applicant has been represented in the proceeding by Maurice Blackburn Cashman (“MBC”). The applicant alleged that he and the members of the representative group were shareholders in GIO when it was the subject of a hostile takeover bid by AMP Insurance Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (“AMP”). They did not sell their shares and the gist of the case maintained by the applicant was that by retaining the shares, he and the other members of the group suffered loss. That loss was caused by the misleading and deceptive conduct of the respondents (while that simplifies the allegations, it is an adequate description for present purposes). A significant element in the conduct complained of was a Part B statement issued in late 1998. A summary of the applicant’s case (as then formulated) can be found in King v GIO Australia Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 209 at 215. Much of that case (but by no means all) is based on allegations that the respondents, including GIO, engaged in conduct in contravention of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). In December 1999, AMP compulsorily acquired all remaining shares in GIO at a price which was only a little more than half the price offered a year earlier.
For the applicant to have succeeded both on his behalf and on behalf of all the group members, it would have been necessary for him to have established that the conduct complained of was unlawful. The determination of that question (though the issues were, in fact, more complex) was fixed for hearing in May 2004 and, in all probability, the hearing would have taken several months. If the applicant had been successful then attention would have turned to the position of individual group members. In order for any individual group member to have established an entitlement to damages, it would have been necessary to demonstrate they did not sell their shares because of the conduct of the respondents. This description represents a gloss on the issues and the path the proceeding was likely to take. However, it serves to illustrate that the potential liability of the respondents to the claims made by the applicant (on his and the group members’ behalf) and the correlative prospects of success for group members, depended substantially on the question of whether an individual group member relied on the content of the Part B statement. One of the criteria for group membership was that the shareholder did not accept the takeover offer by reason of the representations and conduct of the respondents.
The history of the composition of the group and the number of group members is discussed at [4] – [10] of my reasons of 17 September 2003 for approving the settlement. However I should mention three matters. The first is the procedure adopted to enable potential group members to opt out, the second is a process undertaken in early 2003 involving sending group members a “Form A” for completion, and the third is a process undertaken in mid 2003 involving sending group members a “Form C”. When the proceeding commenced there were approximately 67,000 shareholders who, potentially, might have a compensable claim, assuming the matters referred to in the preceding paragraph were established. These 67,000 were the shareholders who owned and retained shares during the period of the hostile takeover bid. Of these shareholders, approximately 22,000 retained MBC to act on their behalf. In early 2001, approximately 18,000 potential group members opted out of the proceeding. This occurred after a notice was sent to all potential group members indicating they could opt out of the proceedings as contemplated by s 33J of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). This left approximately 50,000 shareholders who may have had a compensable claim against the respondents. Some people may not have opted out because they believed they were never in the representative group. Some may have known that they retained shares during the hostile takeover bid for reasons unrelated to the conduct of the respondents.
By the middle of 2002, it was clear that GIO wanted to take steps to ascertain, as best it could, the number of shareholders who really had and would wish to pursue a claim of the type identified by the applicant in the pleadings. Plainly enough (and this was made clear by counsel appearing for GIO in submissions they made) GIO wanted to have some understanding of its potential liability in the proceeding. Its potential liability would be relevant to any discussions directed towards settlement. In a judgment I gave on 11 July 2002 ((2002) 121 FCR 480), I made orders (which were opposed by the applicant) designed to facilitate communications between GIO and shareholders for the purpose just discussed. In a later judgment given on 16 December 2002 ([2002] FCA 1560) I effectively authorised (over the opposition of the applicant) GIO to send out a questionnaire to ascertain which shareholders viewed themselves as not being a group member and which shareholders did not want to participate in the proceeding (whether or not they were a group member). The questionnaire was also intended to elicit some basic information about the nature of any claim from those shareholders who did not take either of those positions, including information concerning reliance. Of those who were sent the questionnaire, approximately 5,000 responded by returning a form, “Form A”, indicating they either did not consider themselves to be a group member or they did not wish to participate in the proceeding.
The third matter is of importance to the issue I am addressing in these reasons, namely the “Form C” process. In June 2003, the applicant (supported by GIO) applied for orders intended to crystallise the number of shareholders who wished to continue to participate in the proceeding by asserting a claim of the type alleged by the applicant (on behalf of each member of the representative group) at the commencement of the proceeding and to whom GIO (and other respondents) might be liable. The orders had the effect of redefining the representative group. I made those orders on 19 June 2003. I did so because a point had been reached where, in my opinion, it was appropriate and fair to attempt to identify with precision the shareholders (and their identity) on whose behalf the proceeding was being maintained in substance and not merely in form. The central order redefining the class was in the following terms:
On 7 August 2003 the Fifth Application and the Seventh Further Amended Statement of Claim be amended to provide that the group members to whom the proceeding relates within the meaning of s 33H of the Act be the identified group members [in effect the shareholders who completed and returned a form they were sent] provided that the addition or deletion of persons to or from the said list may be effected at any time by the Court if it is satisfied that the omission or inclusion of the person on the said list was the result of an error by any party, its representative or the Court or otherwise.
The words “or otherwise” were added by me to the draft proposed by the parties to allow the Court to deal with any unforseen consequences of the course that was then being charted for the proceeding.
As a result of the orders, all shareholders who had not opted out (other than clients of MBC and the 5,000 shareholders referred to in [6] above) were sent a letter to an address in a database maintained by GIO. The letter was headed “IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS REPRESENTATIVE ACTION FOR COMPENSATION YOU MUST COMPLY WITH THIS NOTICE. IF YOU DO NOT DO SO YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE LOST”. The letter was ultimately sent to 25,806 people.
The letter contained a form described as “Form C”, which the recipient was told had to be filled out and returned by 24 July 2003 (in a reply paid envelope included with the letter) for the recipient to continue as a group member. The letter contained a lengthy explanation about what had to be done and what was occurring. One of the orders made on 19 June 2003 was that the members of the group would be redefined by reference to a list of people who completed and returned “Form C”. The letter sent with “Form C” correctly stated the position concerning the effect of not returning the form by 24 July 2003. In addition to the letter, advertisements were placed in both the Australian newspaper and a major metropolitan daily newspaper in each capital city advising that these steps had to be taken to remain a member of the representative group. Of those who were sent the letter, 1957 returned a completed “Form C” within the specified time (what occurred is a little more complex but this description is sufficient for present purposes). They became members of the representative group redefined by the orders made on 19 June 2003 (and later varied in minor respects which need not be detailed). On behalf of its clients, MBC completed and returned “Form C”s with the result that a further 21,142 people became members of the representative group, redefined by the orders made on 19 June 2003. By this process the representative group totalled 23,099. This was apparent by early August 2003. This group was called the Schedule of Identified Group Members (“SIGM”) and became the representative group on whose behalf the proceeding was being maintained.
I was then acting on the basis that the combined effect of ss 33ZB and 33ZE of Part IVA was as follows. Any judgment ultimately given would not bind people who may have initially been members of the representative group but were not one of the 23,099 who had completed “Form C” and became, in aggregate, the representative group by the orders made on 19 June 2003. Those who did not become part of the redefined representative group had the benefit of a temporary suspension of limitation periods in which they could sue at least until 7 August 2003. At the hearing on 19 June 2003, no party demurred from these propositions (and in particular the effect of the orders on any limitation periods) when they were discussed.
The matter was listed for hearing on 25, 26 and 27 November 2003 to revise the SIGM which, as amended, will become the Final List of Identified Group Members (“FLIGM”), as defined in Clause 2.1 of the Settlement Scheme. It is only the people in the FLIGM who will participate in the settlement.
Following the settlement and subsequent publicity, MBC received a number of enquiries from people asserting a right to participate in the settlement who did not appear on the SIGM. In addition, there are a number of individuals who MBC suggests be excluded from or added to the SIGM on a range of grounds. These reasons deal with these issues. MBC has grouped these people into categories. A convenient way of structuring these reasons is to set out the categories and the principles applied by MBC in each category when proposing whether an individual or entity should be excluded or included in the SIGM. These reasons are intended to provide a public record of the approach I have adopted to each category and, generally, the result of adopting it. During the hearing on 25, 26 and 27 November 2003 I made a number of rulings concerning the circumstances of specific individuals. Generally, I do not propose to repeat those rulings which can be found in the transcript. The number of people I have set out when discussing each category may not, in certain instances, be entirely accurate. That is because of overlaps between categories and because the discussion of the circumstances of some individuals who properly should fall into one category, arose when considering another category or at a later point in the hearing.
Complainants
There are approximately 838 people who were not included in the SIGM who contacted MBC following the settlement claiming they should participate in the settlement. Clause 3.6 and 3.7 of the Settlement Scheme set out the procedure for dealing with such matters:
Disputes
3.6Any person who is not in the SIGM but asserts that he, she or it is a group member entitled to participate in this settlement must notify MBC in writing of that assertion within 2 months of the date on which the Court approves this settlement. No person who asserts an entitlement to participate in this settlement after 2 months from the date of such approval will be added to the settlement database.
3.7Where a person has given notice to MBC pursuant to paragraph 3.6 and MBC does not consider the person to be entitled to participate in this settlement, then MBC will within a reasonable time after it receives the person’s written notification write to the person informing him, her or it of MBC’s opinion and its basis and advise the person that he, she or it has 14 days from the date of MBC’s letter to give written notice to MBC that it wishes to have its assertion referred to the Court for resolution.
The 838 people who claimed they should participate in the settlement were sent a “Form E” by MBC. This form sought details of the person’s claim, and requested appropriate documentary evidence to support their claim. Based on the “Form E” process, MBC has proposed the inclusion or exclusion of individuals, by applying principles which I will detail shortly. Each person who has been proposed for exclusion by MBC has been informed by letter. If they wished their circumstances to be considered by the Court, they were asked to complete and return another form, “Form F”. MBC has called these people complainants and I will use the same expression but only to maintain consistency in the descriptions used. The descriptions of the categories and the principles applied by MBC have been extracted from the affidavit of Stephen Patrick Walsh, sworn on 18 November 2003 (“the Walsh affidavit”). Mr Walsh is a partner at MBC and was one of the senior solicitors responsible for the conduct of the proceedings on the appellant’s behalf.
At the hearing, submissions were made by senior counsel appearing for the applicant, senior counsel appearing for GIO and another senior counsel, Mr Franklin SC, who was briefed to appear as a contradictor. Mr Franklin SC was briefed as a result of a proposal I put to MBC at an earlier directions hearing that it was desirable for a lawyer to appear to represent the interests of complainants who MBC was proposing not be included in the settlement. That is, he was instructed to appear in the proceeding to argue, within proper bounds, for the inclusion in the SIGM of people MBC considered should be excluded. Senior counsel for GIO also took an active part in arguments about who should be included and who should be excluded. He generally argued for inclusion. A limited number of individuals were separately legally represented or appeared themselves.
Before considering individual categories it is, I think, important to emphasise one matter. The settlement reached between the parties involved (with one qualification that is not now relevant) the creation of a fund of a fixed amount of $97 million to be distributed among people who constituted the group members following the “Form C” process. Basically the group membership who would receive payments from the fund would only be those who completed a “Form C”. It would be open to anyone who was no longer a group member as a result of this process to consider bringing their own legal proceedings. From what I have been told by the parties, the rationale for the settlement achieved in this way appears to be that the people who would enjoy the benefit of the settlement were those who had been prepared to look after their own interests either by retaining MBC (who would attend to “Form C” on their behalf) or, if they had not retained MBC, by completing a “Form C” themselves.
The “Form C” process appears to have been critical to settlement being achieved. However, at the time of the settlement, the parties to the settlement recognised that the “Form C” process may require further review and refinement as more details emerged about its effect. The hearings on the 25, 26 and 27 November 2003 took place to refine the “Form C” process and ensure its equitable application. That is, my task has been to complete and perfect the settlement agreed between the parties having regard to the way the settlement was structured and the terms upon which the settlement was reached. My task has not been to exclude or include individuals on some general basis of what is fair or unfair or to exclude or include individuals for reasons that involve the application of some technical rule. No doubt some people who are not included may feel aggrieved and consider the process unfair. But it is important for those individuals to understand that their exclusion resulted from the way in which the parties decided to settle the proceeding as well as the way in which those individuals responded to the “Form C” which was sent to them.
It is also important for those that may feel aggrieved to understand that the settlement fund available for distribution is a fixed amount. The settlement fund available for distribution would not increase if they were added to the group. The inclusion of each complainant in the final representative group (the FLIGM) will result in payment to them of a proportion of the settlement fund which will necessarily result in the reduction of the amount available to be paid to each and every other member of the group. For each complainant included, the amount paid to all others in the group will be reduced. Obviously the inclusion (as a group member) of one complainant who had a small shareholding in GIO and who is later paid out of a settlement fund of $97 million will have a very limited impact on the payments made to other group members by reducing those payments. However the inclusion of large numbers of additional former shareholders could have a significant impact, because the cumulative effect of their inclusion could result in a material reduction in the payments made to other members of the group who, by and large, have looked after and protected their own interests in the proceeding.

I turn now to consider the individual categories.
Category 1 – People who have withdrawn their assertion
The description given to this category by MBC at par 17 of the Walsh affidavit reads:
Some complainants returned Form F seeking to withdraw their assertion and stating that they do not require it to be dealt with by the Federal Court. MBC recommends that those complainants should not be added to the SIGM. Now produced to me and marked “WD2” is a schedule listing those complainants whom MBC recommends should not be added to the SIGM.
There were initially 72 people in this category but a further small number have recently indicated to MBC they wished to be included in this category. All in this category should be excluded from the SIGM.
Category 2 – Change of address by complainant
A number of those claiming a right to participate in the settlement indicated they had not received the “Form C” as they had changed their address at some stage after the proceeding commenced. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
Some complainants have asserted that they did not receive Form C because it was sent to an address that was no longer current.
The possibility of change of address was considered by this Court in June 2003 and a regime of advertising in The Australian newspaper and certain capital city daily newspapers was specifically implemented for this reason. I am aware from my conduct of other representative actions that newspaper advertising is the usual mode of communication in class actions as postal addresses of group members are usually not available. I am also aware that newspaper advertising is also commonly used by courts in state probate jurisdictions.
We have adopted the principle that a simple change of address by itself is not sufficient to justify inclusion.
Some complainants have however taken some positive steps to ensure that their change of address did not prejudice their ability to receive material relating to the case. Those steps have included:
Having mail redirection arrangements with Australia Post as at 26 June 2003;
Advising a party to the litigation or relevant organisation of the change of address. Some complainants, prior to June 2003, advised one of GIO, AMP Limited, the Federal Court, Ebsworth and Ebsworth Lawyers, the Australian Stock Exchange or MBC that they had changed address. A number of people are in this category because they have produced documentary evidence of their ownership of AMP Income Securities which indicates AMP is in possession of their current address.
We have regarded the taking of at least one such step as a basis for proposing inclusion.
Of the 152 complainants in this category, MBC proposed 53 for inclusion in the SIGM and 99 for exclusion. At the hearing, senior counsel for the applicant accepted the inclusion of a number of individuals who Mr Franklin SC argued should be included (but who MBC had initially proposed should be excluded). Senior counsel for GIO submitted that all individuals who had not received “Form C” because they had changed their address between the time the proceeding commenced and “Form C” was sent, should be included. I agree with this last submission.
Shortly after the proceeding was commenced, a notice was sent to all potential group members indicating they could, if they wished, opt out of the proceeding. Approximately eighteen thousand did. The notice was in terms consistent with Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) which is based on a scheme involving group members opting out. That is, the notice was part of a process of ascertaining the individuals on whose behalf the proceeding were being maintained. Those who did not wish to have the proceeding maintained on their behalf could opt out of the proceedings. The individuals who received a notice and did not opt out could reasonably have expected that the proceeding would continue to be maintained on their behalf. The “Form C” process created, in practical effect, an opt in process notwithstanding the scheme of Part IVA and the terms of the notice inviting individuals to opt out.
In my opinion, a substantial injustice could be done to individuals who elected not to opt out and who have established that they were not given the opportunity of opting in because they changed their address and were not sent (to their current address) and did not receive (at least in time) a “Form C”. It is true, as senior counsel for the applicant submitted, a significant number of these individuals took no steps to advise MBC or GIO that they had changed their address. It is also true that there were advertisements in all major metropolitan newspapers and the Australian advising of the “Form C” process. However those people were not put on notice at the beginning of the proceedings that it was necessary, in their own interests, to advise of any change of address nor were they informed of the possibility that an opt in process might be adopted. With the benefit of hindsight, it may have been desirable to advise all potential group members of the need to either inform MBC or GIO of a change of address or, at the least, advise them to regularly have recourse to a source of information (most obviously a web site) to ensure that they remained informed about the course the proceedings were taking. But that did not happen. All complainants in this category should be included.
Category 3 – Complainants who were away from home during the “Form C” period
Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Walsh affidavit set out the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
Some complainants assert that they were away from home in June 2003 or July 2003 and did not receive Form C to be able to complete and return it by 24 July 2003.
We have adopted the principle that being away from home for at least 14 days between 26 June 2003 and 24 July 2003 should be sufficient to justify inclusion in the SIGM.
Of the 60 complainants in this category, MBC proposed 25 for inclusion in the SIGM and 35 for exclusion. Mr Franklin SC identified 17 of the 35 which he submitted should be included. Senior counsel for the applicant ultimately accepted those 17 should be included. This left 18 which no party submitted should be included. I have reviewed the material provided by each of them. It is not apparent to me that an inference can be drawn that 17 of the 18 were absent from the address to which “Form C” was sent for the period between the likely date of receipt of the form and 24 July 2003 which was the date by which it had to be returned. Accordingly it cannot be inferred that the failure to return “Form C” was because the recipient was unaware of the need to return it because he or she was absent from the address to which it was sent. In my opinion, 17 of the 18 should not be included in the SIGM because there is no reasonable explanation for failing to return “Form C”. One person in this group, Mr Cullen, has established the inference can be drawn, and accordingly should be included.
Category 4 – Complainants who did not receive “Form C” as they were recorded as having opted out
Paragraphs 30 to 33 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
This category covers complainants who were never sent a Form C due to an error or what they assert is an error on the GIO database where they are recorded as having opted out of this proceeding.
Where complainants did opt out there is no error and MBC proposes that such complainants are not added to the SIGM.
Where there is no opt-out notice filed MBC recommends that complainants be included.
MBC has taken opt-out notices filed with the Federal Court as definitive of the question. MBC legal assistant Helen Shaw, with the assistance of Natasha Jugden and Bill Kurunda, conducted a search of the opt-out notices at the Federal Court registry in October and November 2003.
Of the 26 complainants in this category, MBC proposed 10 for inclusion in the SIGM, and 16 for exclusion. The 16 are complainants whose opt out notice (retained by the Court) has been sighted by an employee of MBC. No submission was made that these 16 should be included. Having opted out, in my opinion, they should be excluded.
Category 5 – Complainants who did not receive a “Form C” because he, she or it completed Form A
Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
This category covers complainants who were never sent a Form C because he, she or it is recorded as having returned Form A in early 2003 stating that he, she or it was not a group member.
Where such complainants did complete Form A, MBC proposes that they not be added to the SIGM. Every complainant whom GIO recorded as having completed Form A did so. I have sighted a copy Form A for every such person. Accordingly MBC recommends that all complainants in this category not be added to SIGM.
Of the 4 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all be excluded from the SIGM. No party submitted they should be included. While “Form A” did not have the formal legal status of an opt out notice, in my opinion, people who completed this form indicating that they did not wish to be involved in the proceedings or were not a group member are in the same position as those who had earlier opted out. They should be excluded.
Category 6 – Complainants who did not receive “Form C” because they were listed incorrectly as MBC clients
Paragraph 41 of the Walsh affidavit outlines the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
This category covers complainants who were never sent a Form C due to an error on the GIO database in that they were incorrectly recorded as an MBC client. Because these complainants were denied the opportunity to participate and satisfied the criteria for group membership at the time of the Form C process, MBC proposes that all of them be added to the SIGM.
Of the 16 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all be included in the SIGM. No party submitted they should not. I agree they should be included.
Category 7– Complainants who did not receive a “Form C” because they were not registered owners of shares continuously between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999
Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
We have adopted the principle that complainants who did not receive Form C because they were not registered owners of GIO shares continuously between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999 should not be added to the SIGM, since this accords with the group definition at the time that the Form C process occurred.
There are a number of situations where complainants in this category held registered ownership for part of the period or beneficial ownership for all of the period but none of these satisfy the requirement of continuous share ownership from 25 August 1998 to 4 January 1999. These include:
1.Registered ownership for part of the relevant period only.
2.Transfers between registered (legal) and beneficial owners during the period.
3.Shares held on trust for a complainant by an excluded entity (eg GIO Guardians Pty Ltd)
4.Shares held on trust by an entity that MBC did not certify for, that did not return Form C and is not a complainant.
Of the 29 complainants in this category, MBC proposed 10 for inclusion in the SIGM and 19 for exclusion. Initially Mr Franklin SC submitted that where, for example, the registered ownership of the shares was transferred from one trustee to another trustee during the relevant period (25 August 1998 to 4 January 1999) or from a trustee to the beneficiaries, they should be included. However the fifth further amended statement of claim (amended by leave given by the Court on 7 February 2001) defined the group by reference to registered ownership. That is, a person was a group member only if they were the registered owner of the shares for the whole of the relevant period. This amendment preceded the notice being sent out which enabled potential group members to opt out and all potential group members were probably on constructive notice of this limitation. But in any event, because the applicant chose to define the group in this way, the proceeding was not (at least from 7 February 2001 (and probably earlier)) being maintained on behalf of anyone who was not the registered owner of the shares during the whole of the relevant period. Accordingly MBC correctly identified the 19 for exclusion. They should be excluded.
Category 8 – Complainants who were sent a “Form C” notice at the correct address but who claim not to have received that “Form C” notice
Paragraph 48 of the Walsh affidavits sets out the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
We have adopted the principle that if a Form C was posted to the correct address then, in the absence of some cogent explanation of why it was not received, a complainant should not be added to the SIGM. In our letter to complainants advising our intention to recommend exclusion on this ground we have suggested that if they provide a statutory declaration we will refer it to the Court. There are no complainants in this category whom MBC considers to have advanced a cogent reason for non-receipt.
Of the 79 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all 79 for exclusion from the SIGM. Mr Franklin SC identified 31 of these complainants who, in his submission, should not be excluded. After discussions involving senior counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr Franklin SC and the legal representatives of GIO, it was agreed that 35 of the 79 should not be excluded. I have reviewed the paperwork in relation to the remaining complainants in this category. That is, those who no party supports being included in the settlement. The approach I have taken is that it is necessary for me to be affirmatively satisfied that the complainant did not receive the “Form C”. A person who did receive the form and either consciously or inadvertently did not complete it now has a financial incentive to say that it was never received. In the correspondence between MBC and complainants in this category, virtually all were invited to submit a statutory declaration declaring on oath they did not receive a “Form C”. I propose to act on the basis (as have the parties in agreeing to the further inclusion of the 35) that those who submitted a statutory declaration should be included but those who have not should be excluded (subject to some limited exceptions). My review of the paperwork indicated the should be one further inclusion, the Mitres who did swear a statutory declaration.
Category 9– Complainants who did not return “Form C” or “Form E”
Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
Persons who did not return Form C on time or at all and who have contacted MBC asserting a right to participate in the GIO settlement were all sent Form E questionnaires where we sought details of their assertions. There are [158] 193 complainants who have not returned the Form E questionnaire to provide details and evidence of their assertions. We have taken the view that those people should not be added to the SIGM.
There are no complainants proposed for inclusion in this category of complainants.
Of the 158 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all 158 be excluded from the SIGM. I agree with the approach adopted by MBC and no submission was made by Mr Franklin SC or senior counsel for GIO that generally some other approach should be adopted. Mr Franklin SC identified one in this group which should be included having regard to their particular circumstances, which was accepted by senior counsel for the applicant and included. Senior counsel for GIO argued for the inclusion of a further 7 having regard to their particular circumstances. I agreed 6 of those should be included and one not.
Category 10 – Complainants who returned no or late “Form C” due to inadvertence or non comprehension
Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
Some complainants have alleged that they lost Form C, did not comprehend it, forgot to return it or were too busy to return it. We consider that these are not adequate reasons and these complainants should not be added to the SIGM.
There are no complainants proposed for inclusion in this category.
Of the 146 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all 146 be excluded from the SIGM. Mr Franklin SC ultimately identified 11 who should be included and senior counsel for the applicant agreed. They will be included. Senior counsel for GIO identified a further 20 which he submitted should be included. I do not accept any of them should be. I adopted the approach that if the complainant received “Form C” and entrusted to an agent either the completion or the posting of the form or both, and the agent failed to complete the task and there was no reasonable excuse for the agent’s failure, the complainant should not be included. I also adopted the approach that if the shareholder did not complete and return “Form C” by 24 July 2003 because of some mistaken belief about the effect of doing so (such as exposing themselves to costs orders), this did not provide sufficient reason for their inclusion. The letter accompanying “Form C” and the form made it quite clear that it had to be completed (to remain in the proceedings) and also made it clear what the consequences were of not completing and returning it.
Category 11 – Complainants who claim a medical reason for not returning “Form C”
Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
We have adopted the principle that where a person advances a reason based on medical grounds for late or non return of Form C then they should not be added to the SIGM unless they demonstrate both:
1.A medical condition sufficiently serious to cause either an incapacity or infirmity preventing them from dealing with their own affairs and;
2. Supporting evidence from a medical practitioner.
There are no complainants proposed for inclusion in this category.
Of the 20 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all 20 be excluded from the SIGM. Mr Franklin SC identified 7 who, having regard to their particular circumstances, should be included and senior counsel for the applicant agreed. They will be included. Senior counsel for GIO identified a further 8 for inclusion having regard to their particular circumstances. Senior counsel for the applicant agreed in relation to one and not in relation to the remainder. I accepted that 4 of the 8 should be included and the other 4 not. Generally my approach was that the complainant should be included only if he or she was sufficiently ill during the period the “Form C” should have been completed and returned that the complainant was not in a position to complete and return it.
Category 12 – Late “Form C” – Complainants who claim they sent “Form C” to be received by 24 July 2003 though “Form C” was not received until after that date
Paragraphs 62 to 64 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
The Notice Regarding Identification of group members accompanying the Form C stated that:
“If you do not return the “Form C” certificate so that it is received at the post box on the reply paid envelope by 24 July 2003 you will no longer be a Group Member in the proceeding.”
We have adopted the principle that if a Form C was not received by 24 July 2003 then such complainants should not be added to the SIGM.
There are no complainants proposed for inclusion in this category of complainants.

Of the 40 complainants in this category, MBC proposed all 40 be excluded from the SIGM. Ultimately, however senior counsel for the applicant accepted at the hearing that all in this category should be included if the form was sent before 24 July 2003 but not received until after that date. They will be.
Category 13 – Miscellaneous complaints
Paragraph 67 outlines the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
There is a group of complainants who do not fit into any of the above general categories (though the assertions raised by them may have some similarities with those categories), or who raise several issues covering more than one category, or for some other reason need to be dealt with on an individual basis.
Of the 36 complainants in this category, MBC proposed 5 for inclusion in the SIGM and 31 for exclusion. Mr Franklin SC identified a further 12 complainants who should be included. Senior counsel for the applicant agreed in relation to 6 of them. I am satisfied a further 2 of those identified by Mr Franklin SC should be included. Senior counsel for GIO identified a further 4 for inclusion, all of which I accept should be included.
One group of complainants in this category who appeared and made submissions through a solicitor, was a group whose affairs were managed by a Mr N. Thomas. The facts concerning this group may be briefly stated. Mr Thomas received “Form C”. He knew, when he received the form, that members of the group would only remain members of the representative group if “Form C” was completed and returned by 24 July 2003. He actually spoke to an employee of MBC (a Mr Watson who has sworn an affidavit) who discussed with him entering a fee and retain a agreement with MBC. However the employee told Mr Thomas he still had to complete and return “Form C” by 24 July 2003. On 15 July 2003 Mr Thomas received a letter from MBC concerning that firm acting for the group represented by Mr Brown. He has given evidence that this letter led him to believe that it was unnecessary to complete and return “Form C.” He annexed to his affidavit an internal company memorandum dated 23 July 2003 which might be viewed as indicating he then held this belief. Even accepting he did, it had no reasonable foundation given the clear and unequivocal terms in which “Form C” was sent. The notice accompanying the form made it quite clear, in my opinion, that it had to be completed. The conversation with Mr Watson only reinforced what was said in the notice and the later letter from MBC should not have, on any reasonable reading of it together with the earlier correspondence, have led to a contrary conclusion. This group of complainants should not be included. The legal representative accepted that they could, if they now wished, commence proceedings in their own right.
Category 14 – People who assert a right to participate who are not covered by the MBC categories
This group includes people who complained after 26 October 2003. The Court received a submission from at least one complainant, Mr Shaw, who claimed a right to participate in the settlement, even though he did not contact MBC about this right until after 26 October 2003 (the date designated in the Settlement Scheme for the closure of disputes). Having regard to his particular circumstances (Form “C” was sent to the wrong address) he should be included. A Mr Moro was in the same position and should be included. Another person in this category, Ms Sampson, was represented and I was satisfied, having regard to her particular circumstances, she should also be included.
Argo Investments
Paragraphs 71 to 79 of the Walsh affidavit outline the attitude of MBC to the inclusion of Argo Investments Limited, an entity with a relevant shareholding:
The group definition in this proceeding in paragraph 2 of the Fifth Further Amended Application (and its related pleading in paragraph 6 of the Seventh Further Amended Statement of Claim) excluded certain persons from group membership. Paragraph 6(b) excluded:
“… any related entity of GIO or Grant Samuel (within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Law)”.
Section 9 of the Corporations Law as it stood in August 1999 (and currently) defined “related entity” as including:
“(k) a body corporate one of whose directors is also a director of the first mentioned body”
This proceeding was issued on the 31^st August 1999. ASIC records indicate that at the date of issue of the proceeding, the seventh respondent, Marina Darling, was a director of the first respondent GIO Australia Holdings Limited (now AG Australia Holdings Limited) (“GIO”) and had been since 12^th September 1995. She resigned that directorship on 10^th September 1999.
ASIC records also state that at the date of issue of this proceeding Marina Darling was a director Argo Investments Limited ACN 007 519 520 (“Argo”) having been appointed on 23 July 1999.
I believe from what I have read in the financial press that Argo is a trustee company and that the majority of the shares held in its name are held on behalf of investors.
I am informed by Tina Vecchio, a para-legal assistant in the employ of MBC that it appears that the GIO shareholder database included Argo as a group member or possible group member which held two parcels of shares. As a result Argo was sent two Notices and attached Form Cs and it returned these on 30 June 2003. One was for 1,511,576 shares and one was for 200,294 shares.
At the time the SIGM was prepared Argo was not included despite returning Form C due to the exclusion of “related entities”.
I have subsequently received correspondence from Argo’s lawyers asserting a right for Argo to be included on various grounds. Now produced to me and marked “ARG” is a copy of a letter from Argo’s lawyers, dated 20 August 2003, summarising those arguments.
Argo asserts that though it may have been a related entity at one time it ceased to be a related entity following Marina Darling’s resignation as a GIO director. MBC now accepts the force of this submission in particular because the definition of group member had been amended previously expressly to include Argo and if applicable any other public company which may have been incidentally a related entity. The original exclusion of related entities had always been intended to exclude the private investment vehicles of GIO directors, not public companies.
MBC proposed that Argo Investments Limited by included in the SIGM. I agree.
Other additions and exclusions from the SIGM
There are a number of additional inclusions and exclusions from the SIGM proposed by MBC. These do not concern complainants claiming a right to participate. They have been proposed for inclusion or exclusion for some other reason. These have also been divided into relevant categories.
Category 15 – Uncertified MBC clients
Paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Walsh affidavit outline the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
MBC’s certification of its clients was thus based upon instructions received from those clients and our own verification of those instructions to the extent that was possible at the time. The certification was for all persons who had retained MBC to act for them individually by returning a fee and retainer agreement and who otherwise satisfied the group definition. Eight persons who had retained MBC were not correctly recorded as such in the MBC database. This was apparently due to them moving address. Consequently no Form C was completed for them.
After investigation, MBC is satisfied that those persons are MBC clients, who satisfied the criteria for group membership at the time of the Form C process, for whom MBC should have certified, so that they were included on the SIGM. …
Of the 9 people in this category, MBC had proposed all be included in the SIGM. I agree.
Category 16 – SIGM members who are excluded from the proceeding because they opted out
Paragraph 90 of the Walsh affidavit sets out the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
Some persons in the SIGM have opted out. The same searches have been carried out at the registry as for complainants in category four, as set out in paragraph 33 above [see [28] and [29] above]. The same criterion has been applied.
A total of 561 persons or entities on the SIGM have opted out. MBC has proposed all of them be excluded from the SIGM. I agree.
Category 17 – SIGM members whose identified shares were not registered continuously in their name between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999.
Paragraph 94 and 95 of the Walsh affidavits outlines the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
MBC recommends certain persons should be deleted from the SIGM because the shares for which they claim, were not registered continuously in their name between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999.
Now produced to me and marked “D-NCO2” is a schedule listing persons who MBC recommends should be deleted from the SIGM as not being registered owners of GIO shares continuously between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999 due to the person:
1.Being a registered owner for part of the relevant period only;
2.Being a registered owner for part of the period and an equitable owner for the remainder of the period (due to transfers between registered and beneficial owners during the period); or
3.Having their shares held on trust for them by an excluded entity (eg GIO Guardians).
A total of 31 persons or entities are proposed for exclusion from the SIGM. I agree.
Category 18 – SIGM members whose identified shares were registered in the name of an entity that did not return “Form C” and is not a complainant
Paragraph 97 of the Walsh affidavit outlines the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
MBC recommends certain persons should be deleted from the SIGM because the shares for which they claim were not registered continuously in their name between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999. These shares were held on trust for them by entities such as trustee companies, that MBC did not certify for. These entities did not return Form C and are not complainants.
A total of 6 have been proposed for exclusion by MBC for this reason. I agree.
Category 19 – SIGM members whose shareholdings cannot be identified
Paragraph 100 of the Walsh affidavit outlines the principles applied by MBC in relation to this category:
Principles we have applied
I am informed by McCormack and believe that he has attempted to match each member of the SIGM with a Holder Identification Number (“HIN”) on the GIO database of shareholders. I am further informed by McCormack that in a few cases he has been unable to match a member of the SIGM with any HIN at all. The criterion that MBC has applied to determine registered ownership is correlation between a HIN and a name in the GIO Share Register. Where there is no such correlation MBC considers that the person is not the registered owner. The relevant documentary proof we have required is a holding statement or dividend statement which shows both the HIN and the name.
A total of 27 have been proposed for exclusion as a result of these searches. I agree.
Category 20 – Ineligibles who completed “Form C”
Paragraphs 103 to 107 of the Walsh affidavit state:
As referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 of my affidavit sworn 28 July 2003 certain persons telephoned MBC between 26 June and 24 July 2003 and asked that they be forwarded a Notice and Form C and 12 of these persons returned Form C before 24 July 2003.
On 31 July 2003 this Court ordered that those 12 persons would not be Identified Group Members for the purposes of order 5 made on 19 June 2003.
I am informed by McCormack and believe that he has searched the GIO database records provided by GIO for details of shareholdings of these twelve persons and identified that four of these persons were registered owners during the period but that the remaining eight were not. I have advised those eight persons who were excluded from the SIGM, by letter dated 12 August 2003, that they do not appear to have been registered GIO shareholders in the applicable period and enclosing copies of the orders made on 31 July 2003. That letter also advised those eight persons to advise MBC immediately if they believed the GIO shareholder database was incorrect and provide us with supporting documents. Now produced to me and marked “IGB” is one of those letters. All eight letters were in the same terms, other than for identifying particulars.
I have received no responses to those letters from those eight persons.
In the case of the other four of those persons I have reviewed holding statements provided by those persons which support their claim that they did have continuous registered ownership between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999. These have been verified by inspections of the share register. Consequently, I have included those persons as complainants in exhibit “NRO1”, proposed to be added to the SIGM.
Of the 12 persons or entities in this category, MBC has proposed 8 for exclusion from the SIGM, and 4 for inclusion in category 7 (see above). I agree.
Category 21 – SIGM member who accepted AMP offer
Paragraphs 108 to 113 of the Walsh affidavit outlines the situation in relation to this person:
This group definition in this proceeding covers those who inter alia
“….did not accept the takeover offers for those shares made by AMP Insurance Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (“AMP”) on 25 August 1998…”
It is also a precondition of loss that a person did not accept the AMP offer.
I am further informed by McCormack that he has not been able to identify an eligible shareholding for one member of the SIGM. I am further informed by Sarah Shafton, a paralegal employed by MBC that that person has now advised her that he did in fact accept the AMP offer.
Now produced to me and marked “D-AAM2” is a schedule containing that person’s name. MBC recommends that person should be deleted from the SIGM.
MBC has written letters to that person advising him of the above and our intention to seek his removal from the SIGM. The person has been given an opportunity to object with reasons in writing by 21 November 2003. Now produced to me and marked “D-AAM4” is a copy of that letter.
At the time of swearing of this affidavit I have received no response to that letter.
That person has been proposed for exclusion from the SIGM. I agree.
Category 22 – SIGM member who wishes to withdraw
Paragraph 114 to 116 of the Walsh affidavit outlines the situation in relation to one person who wishes to withdraw from the proceeding:
I am informed by Paul Watson a para-legal assistant employed by MBC that on 24 October 2003 he received a letter from the wife and executor of the estate of the shareholder listed in the schedule annexed hereto and marked “D-WW2” (“the executor”). The executor stated in the letter that the shareholder had passed away. A copy of the shareholder’s death certificate was attached to the letter. The executor also advised she wished to withdraw from the action.
Now produced to me and marked “D-WW2” is a schedule containing the name of that person, letter and death certificate. MBC recommends the name of that person should be deleted from the SIGM.
On 17 November 2003, MBC sent a letter to the executor advising her that we intend to apply to the Court to delete the name of that person from the SIGM. In that letter the executor was advised that she had until 21 November 2003 to contest that decision. Now produced to me and marked “D-WW4” is a copy of that letter.
MBC proposed this person be excluded from the SIGM. I agree.
Category 23 – Duplications
Paragraphs 117 to 119 of the Walsh affidavit sets out the principles applied by MBC in relation to duplicated entries on the SIGM:
I am further informed by McCormack that he has identified certain shareholdings where persons have been certified for as members of the SIGM because they are MBC clients but where they have also returned Form C with the result that those persons appear twice on the SIGM in relation to the same shareholding. I refer to paragraph 10 of McCormack’s affidavit sworn 21 August 2003.
I am informed by McCormack and believe that he has undertaken a process of matching each member of the SIGM with a HIN on the GIO database of shareholders and that at present there are 27 shareholdings left to match out of a total number of 23,099. I am further informed by McCormack that in the matching process each HIN has been matched only once to a member of the SIGM. Now produced to me and marked “D-PL2” is a schedule of persons that appear more than once on the SIGM where MBC recommends that duplicates of the names should be deleted from the SIGM.
Where such apparent duplicated claims exist in respect of the same parcel of shares we have written letters to those persons advising them of the apparent duplication and our intention to remove the duplicated names of the same person on the SIGM. Such persons have been sent a letter and given an opportunity to object with reasons in writing by 21 November 2003. Now produced to me and marked “D-PL4” is one of those letters. All those letters were in the same terms, other than for identifying particulars.
There are a total of 803 duplications on the SIGM which MBC has proposed be excluded. I agree.
Conclusion
As a result of the preceding process, the FLIGM has been established and those former shareholders of GIO who will participate in the settlement, can be identified (by being listed on the FLIGM). At the conclusion of the hearing on 27 November 2003 I made the following orders by consent:
THE COURT NOTES:
The first respondent acknowledges that any notice of motion concerning:
a)future processing costs of implementing the settlement scheme approved 26 August 2003 (“the Scheme”);
b)the resolution of any dispute regarding shareholder entitlements arising from the Form D process under the Scheme;
will not be resisted on the grounds of merger.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to further order, MBC prepare a Final List of Identified Group Members to reflect orders, directions and rulings made on 25, 26 and 27 November 2003 by reference to the affidavit of Stephen Walsh sworn 18 November 2003 and material to similar effect.
2.The list prepared in accordance with Order 1 constitute the members of the representative group in respect of whom judgment is given pursuant to Order 6.
3.The document headed “Form D” exhibited to the affidavit of Stuart Martin McCormack made 21 August 2003 be amended in the form attached at Schedule 2.
4.The time for making the first tranche payment pursuant to cl 4.9 of the Scheme by extended to 28 February 2004.
5.Pursuant to cl 5.1 of the Scheme, Maurice Blackburn Cashman be authorised to apply $525,572.81 from the Settlement Fund to payment of their processing costs to 14 November 2003.
6.Judgment against the first respondent in the sum of $97,000,000 plus $15,000,000 costs.
Schedule 2 to the Orders sets out “Form D” as amended. The “Form D” will be part of a process used by MBC to clarify the number of shares held by each member of the FLIGM prior to any payment being made under the Scheme.
Since making those orders, the list has been prepared of members of the FLIGM. In the intervening period, I reviewed material relating to 48 complainants whose circumstances were not considered at the hearing, who expressly asked that their position be considered by the Court and who fell into a category where, in my opinion, individual cases needed to be evaluated by the Court (categories 10, 11 and 13). I also reviewed material provided by MBC after the hearing in relation to a further six shareholders. In the result, four people should be included in the FLIGM. Two are included (Hall and Prince) because they did not see Form C because of the conduct of their partners, another because they were overseas (Paschalidis) and another who probably did not opt out but was erroneously treated as having opted out (MacKenzie). One further person will be excluded at their request (Kelleny). Another will be included because he was earlier excluded on a mistaken assumption (Le). Orders 1 and 2 of 27 November 2003 are hereby varied to make these inclusions and exclusions. The FLIGM in its final form is annexure “B” to this judgment.

I certify that the preceding seventy three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:
Dated:             5 December 2003

Counsel for the applicant: K Hanscombe SC

Solicitor for the applicant: Maurice Blackburn Cashman

Counsel for the first respondent:
I Jackman SC

with M Tyson

Solicitor for the first respondent: Ebsworth & Ebsworth

Amicus Curiae/Contradictor: A Franklin SC

Date of hearing: 25-27 November 2003

Date of Judgment: 5 December 2003
ANNEXURE A
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
  No. N 955 of 1999
B E T W E E N :
SHANE ROBERT KING  Applicant
‑ and ‑
AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED (formerly        First Respondent
known as GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD)    Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims
(ACN 054 573 401)  1A, 1B & 1C
Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims
2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A & 7A

GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Second Respondent
(ACN 050 036 372) Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 2A, 2B & 2C Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims
1B, 3A, 4B, 5B, 6B & 7B

DAVID MORTIMER Third Respondent
Cross-Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

BRUCE HOGAN Fourth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 5A & 5B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

STEWART STEFFEY Fifth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claim 3A Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

RONALD ASHTON Sixth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

MARINA DARLING Seventh Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 5A & 5B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

ANDREW KALDOR Eighth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

LLOYD LANGE Ninth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

DAVID O’HALLORAN Tenth Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

IAN POLLARD Eleventh Respondent
Cross‑Claimant to cross‑claims 4A & 4B Cross‑Respondent to cross‑claims 2B & 7D

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS               Cross-Claimant to cross claims
SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 003 311 617)        7A, 7B, 7C & 7D
Cross-Respondent to cross‑claims
  1A, 2C & 6C

TRELSS RICHARD ADAM & ORS Cross-Claimant to cross claims

[PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS]             7A, 7B, 7C & 7D
  Cross-Respondent to cross‑claims
  1A, 2C & 6C
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS               Cross-Claimant to cross claims

ACTUARIAL PTY LTD (ACN 003 562 696) 7A, 7B, 7C & 7D
  Cross-Respondent to cross‑claims
  2C & 6C
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED                  Cross-Claimant to cross claims

(ACN 008 583 542)  6A, 6B & 6C
  Cross-Respondent to cross‑claims
  1C & 7C
GORDIAN RUNOFF LIMITED (formerly Cross-Respondent to cross‑claims
known as GIO INSURANCE LTD)              2A & 7A
(ACN 052 179 647)

SETTLEMENT SCHEME
1.OVERVIEW

1.1The scheme set out herein (‘the Settlement Scheme’) establishes the procedure for determining the group members entitled to receive payment as a result of the settlement of this proceeding (‘the Settlement’), locating those persons, calculating their entitlement, dealing with any disputes and forwarding payment to them.

1.2The Settlement Scheme will involve the following major steps:
(a)MBC will construct a database containing the information necessary to calculate group members’ entitlements under the Settlement;
(b)Following approval of the database by the Court, MBC will write to each group member detailing the calculation of that group member’s eligible shareholding under the Settlement;
(c)On 30 November 2003 (or such later time as the Court may direct) 50% of each undisputed calculation shall be made to each group member (the ‘first tranche payment’);
(d)After the resolution of any outstanding disputes as to any group member’s eligible shareholding and the deduction of the costs of administering the Settlement Scheme, the remaining settlement funds shall be paid to group members in full satisfaction of their entitlements under the settlement (the ‘second tranche payment’), save as provided in Section 4 below.

2.DEFINITIONS

2.1In this Settlement Scheme, the following terms have the meanings defined:

Account means the Account of costs and disbursements of the Applicant
on a solicitor and own client basis prepared by Joseph Mazzeo and made available to the First Respondent on 8 August 2003.

AMP  means AMP Insurance Investment Holdings Ltd.
Directors  means the Third to Eleventh Respondents inclusive.
eligible share                   means a GIO share of which the person continuously registered as the owner throughout the relevant period was an Identified Group Member.
FLIGMmeans the Final List of Identified Group Members as described in
section 3 below.

GIOmeans the First Respondent
Grant Samuel means the Second Respondent
Heads of Agreement means the document of that title executed for the Applicant and the First Respondent by their solicitors on 8 August 2003.

Identified Group Member   means a person identified in the settlement database.
MBC  means Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Solicitors for the Applicant and
  some of the Identified Group Members.
MBC Client database     means the DB Text database described in the Affidavit of Stephen
  Patrick Walsh made 5 August 2003.
OBJECTIVE DATA   FOR A PARTICULAR FORMER GIO SHAREHOLDER

MEANS THE:
(a) full name;
(b) address; and
(c)number of eligible shares held during the relevant period;
of the shareholder.

relevant period means 25 August 1998 to 4 January 1999 inclusive.

Schedule of Group
Members (“SIGM”)      means the SIGM referred to in the Affidavit of Stephen Patrick
Walsh made 5 August 2003 consisting of two parts:
(a)    the MBC Client Database; and
(b)   the 1957 additional Identified Group Members who completed and returned Form C within the prescribed time and who were included in the SIGM pursuant to the Orders made 19 June and 31 July 2003.

settlement database        means the database constructed by MBC as described in the Affidavit of Stuart Martin McCormack made 21 August 2003 (“McCormack’s Affidavit”).
Settlement Fund              means the funds held on trust for group members by MBC with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia as deposed to in the Affidavit of Bernard Michael Murphy made 21 August 2003.
Settlement Sum               means the sum of $97,000,000.00 to be paid by the First Respondent referred to in the Heads of Agreement.

3.THE FINAL LIST OF IDENTIFIED GROUP MEMBERS (‘FLIGM’)

3.1The settlement database defined above shall form the basis of the Final List of Identified Group Members according to the process described below.

Confirmation of group membership
3.2When a person’s information is entered into the settlement database, MBC will write to the person. The letter will:
(a)inform the person of the number of eligible shares of which he, she or it is recorded in the settlement database as having been the registered owner during the relevant period (“the objective data”); and
(b)require the person to notify MBC within 14 days of the date of the letter if the person is not a group member because the person is:
(i)Grant Samuel, or any body corporate related to GIO or Grant Samuel (within the meaning of s 50 of the Corporations Law);
(ii)any related entity of GIO or Grant Samuel (within the meaning of s 9 of the Corporations Law);
(iii)any proprietary company of which any of the Directors is a director or shareholder, or the beneficiary of any trust of which any such Director or corporation is the trustee; and
(iv)AMP Ltd and any related body corporate of AMP Ltd (within the meaning of s.50 of the Corporations Law) or any director thereof; and

(c)give the person an opportunity to contest the objective data and require the person to forward within 14 days of the date of the letter his, her or its written basis for contesting the objective data together with all supporting documentation on which he, she or it relies.
(d)Where a person in the SIGM in MBC’s opinion should be removed, MBC will write to that person informing him, her or it of that view, and of the reason for it. The letter will give the person an opportunity to contest the reason and require the person to forward within 14 days of the date of the letter, his, her or its written basis for contesting the reason, together with all supporting documentation on which he, she or it relies.

Unlocated Identified Group Members
3.3If correspondence sent by MBC addressed to an Identified Group Member is returned by the post office as undeliverable, MBC will search for another address for the person in:
(a)Telstra telephone number records; and
(b)Electoral rolls.

3.4If, despite the searches referred to above, any Identified Group Member is not able to be located (‘unlocated Identified Group Member’) then, prior to final disbursement of settlement moneys to Identified Group Members, MBC will publish a public notice nationally in relation to all such unlocated Identified Group Members making provision for them to contact MBC within a specified time.

3.5After that specified time has elapsed any payments which would otherwise have been made to unlocated Identified Group Members under this Settlement Scheme will form part of the residue of the Settlement Fund and be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 4.11 below in full satisfaction of the unlocated Identified Group Members’ claims the subject of the proceeding.

Disputes
3.6Any person who is not in the SIGM but asserts that he, she or it is a group member entitled to participate in this settlement must notify MBC in writing of that assertion within 2 months of the date on which the Court approves this settlement. No person who asserts an entitlement to participate in this settlement after 2 months from the date of such approval will be added to the settlement database.

3.7Where a person has given notice to MBC pursuant to paragraph 3.6 and MBC does not consider the person to be entitled to participate in this settlement, then MBC will within a reasonable time after it receives the person’s written notification write to the person informing him, her or it of MBC’s opinion and its basis and advise the person that he, she or it has 14 days from the date of MBC’s letter to give written notice to MBC that it wishes to have its assertion referred to the Court for resolution.

The Final List of Identified Group Members
3.8Once any material submitted by a person wishing to participate in this settlement has been considered by MBC the Applicant will move the Court to resolve any disputes and amend and approve the settlement database. The settlement database as amended and approved by the Court will be the Final List of Identified Group Members and will form the basis of payments to group members under this settlement. No payment will be made to any Identified Group Member until the FLIGM has been approved by the Court.

3.9If the FLIGM has not been determined and approved by the Court in time for the first tranche of payments to be made as set out below then the Applicant will move the Court for orders adjusting the timetable for the payment regime as appropriate.

4.THE PAYMENT REGIME

4.1The Settlement Sum is to be disbursed to group members in settlement of their claims the subject of this proceeding, less any amount by which the further legal costs and disbursements of processing the payments exceeds the interest accruing on that sum.

4.2The Settlement Sum is to be paid by the First Respondent into the Settlement Fund within 42 days of the date on which the Court approves this settlement. The signatories to that account are to be Bernard Michael Murphy and Stephen Patrick Walsh. Interest accruing on the account is to be applied to the benefit of group members but available for the payment of additional legal costs and disbursements incurred by MBC in connection with administering this settlement after the date on which the settlement is approved by the Court.

4.3If persons additional to those in the SIGM who were not identified on the GIO database as persons to whom Form C should have been sent are ordered by the Court to be included in the FLIGM, and prove entitlements to payment in the manner set out herein, and the total of such additional payments exceeds $5,000,000.00 ($5 million), then the First Respondent will increase the Settlement Sum by the amount of the additional payments in excess of $5 million.

Pro rata payment of Identified Group Members’ losses
4.4The loss on each eligible share is to be calculated as follows:
(a)for shares sold on the ASX between 5 January 1999 and 15 February 1999 where the registered owner did not receive:
(i)the GIO capital return of $0.38 per share; plus
(ii)the GIO interim dividend of $0.12 per share;

- the difference between the revised AMP takeover offer of $5.35 per share and the daily closing price of GIO shares on the day of sale, as notified to MBC by GIO;
(b)for shares sold on the ASX between 15 February 1999 and 20 December 1999 - the difference between the revised AMP takeover offer of $5.35 per share and the daily closing price of GIO shares on the day of sale as notified to MBC by GIO, less 50 cents being:
(iii)the GIO capital return of $0.38 per share; plus
(iv)the GIO interim dividend of $0.12 per share;

which payments were made by GIO to shareholders on 15 February 1999;
(c)for shares compulsorily acquired in the GIO Scheme of Arrangement - $2.10 per share, being the revised AMP takeover offer of $5.35 per share less $3.25 being:
(i)the compulsory acquisition price of $2.75 per share; plus
(ii)the GIO capital return of $0.38 per share; plus
(iii)the GIO interim dividend of $0.12 per share.

4.5The loss suffered by each Identified Group Member is to be calculated as the sum of the losses on the eligible shares held by that Identified Group Member.

4.6Total loss and damage in the proceeding is to be calculated as:
(a)the sum of the losses on the eligible shares sold on the ASX after 4 January 1999 but before the GIO Scheme of Arrangement on 20 December 1999, calculated as set out in paragraph 4.4 above; plus
(b)the number of eligible shares compulsorily acquired in the GIO Scheme of Arrangement, multiplied by $2.10;

(“the total loss and damage”).

4.7The nett settlement moneys (being the Settlement Fund less the amount, if any, by which the further legal costs and disbursements of processing the payments exceeds the interest accruing on the Settlement Fund, as provided for in section 5 below) shall be applied in payment of the loss suffered by each Identified Group Member, in the proportion of the nett settlement moneys to the total loss and damage in the proceeding (‘the settlement entitlement’).

First tranche payments to Identified Group Members
4.8Once the FLIGM has been approved by the Court, MBC will send a letter to each Identified Group Member setting out MBC’s calculations of that Identified Group Member’s loss, as described in paragraphs 4.4 to 4.7 above.

4.9Not later than 30 November 2003, or such later date as may be directed by the Court, MBC will disburse from the Settlement Fund payments in satisfaction of 50% of the settlement entitlement of each Identified Group Member (“the first tranche payments”).

Second tranche payments to Identified Group Members
4.10Once:
(a)all Identified Group Members who are able to be located have been located;
(b)all disputes regarding entitlements have been resolved either by agreement or by order of the Court; and
(c)all legal costs and disbursements incurred by MBC in administering the process of distributing the settlement entitlements (including resolving any disputes in relation thereto) have been calculated;

the balance of the Identified Group Member’s entitlement will be paid.

4.11After the second tranche payments have been made, if any amount remains in the Settlement Fund which when allocated as set out in paragraph 3.5 would result in payment to any person on the FLIGM of less than $5, no further amount will be paid to that Identified Group Member. Instead, the balance remaining in the Settlement Fund on account of all such amounts shall be paid to the Australian Institute of Management for the purposes of training corporate officers and directors, or to the Australian Shareholders’ Association.

5.COSTS OF PROCESSING AFTER COURT APPROVAL

5.1The costs and disbursements of MBC incurred in arranging and administering the distribution of the Settlement Fund as provided by this Settlement Scheme (“the processing costs”) shall be paid on a solicitor and own client basis from the Settlement Fund as and when those costs are incurred on a monthly basis, subject to the approval of the Court. MBC will not seek to recover from the Settlement Sum, the Settlement Fund or any settlement entitlement any individual costs relating to any Identified Group Member.

DATED: 21 August 2003
ANNEXURE B
King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd)
Final List of Identified Group Members
A C Denholm P/L Super Fund A C, Birch Nominees Pty
A J Farrall Super Fund
A M Delaney Nominees Pty Ltd
Aalders & Van Der Sluys, Jan William & Sherin
Aaron, Leonard Justin
Abagi, Mary
Abbott, Ada J L
Abbott, Elaine
Abbott, Elaine, The Hunter Valley Private Hospital Pty Ltd
Abbott, John & Gail
Abbott, Olga Margaret
Abbott, Ron
Abell, Colin & Roslyn
Abell, Marjorie Violet
Abell, Robert Sebastian
Abeshouse, Arnold
Abeshouse, Myrtle
Abood, Jill Elaine
Aboody, Lorraine Yvonne
Abotomey, Russell Brian
Abouhamad, Henry
Abraham, Annesley
Abraham, Mathew P
Abraham, Morris
Abraham, Paiyampllil Chacko & Thankam
Abraham, Saul M
Abrahams, David George
Abrahams, Neil
Abrahams, Pauline
Absalom, Geoffrey Keith & Elizabeth Mary
Abulafia, Rhoda
Acitelli, Angelo
Acker, Margitta
Ackland, Jane Louise
Ackland, Sarah Helen
Ackroyd, Clifford A
Ackroyd, Joan
Ackroyd, Nigel
Adair, Patricia J
Adair, Thelma Mary, Thelma Mary Adair & The Estate Of Ivan Adair
Adams, Anthony Alex
Adams, Bernard Hedley & Elaine Lillian, Elaine Lillian Adams And The Estate Of Bernard Hed
Adams, Brian
Adams, CW & WL
Adams, Dianne
Adams, Donald David And Gail Marie
Adams, Francis John
Adams, Ian
Adams, Irene
Adams, Jennifer Christine
Adams, John
Adams, John Findlay & Elizabeth Anne
Adams, Joseph
Adams, Leo, Carbon Nominees Pty Ltd
Adams, Margaret Doreen
Adams, Marjorie
Adams, Neville Leslie
Adams, Norma Frances
Adams, Pamela Grace
Adams, Patricia Susan
Adams, Peter John
Adams, R E & W A
Adams, Raymond & Hilda
Adams, Robert Lynton
Adams, Roger Terence And Josephine Georgina
Adams, Shirley Grace
Adams, Sidney, Mr Sidney Barton Adams<Super Fund A/C>
Adams, Susan
Adams & Stevenson, PG & IF
Adamsas, Astkida
Adamson, Donald
Adamson, Guy, Wilson Art Super Fund
Adamson, Lindsay
Adamson, Reginald C & Laura I
Adamson, Stephen James & Fiona
Adcock, Eric Francis
Adcock, Garnet Mark
Adcock, Vince & Judith
Addinall, Graham Ronald
Addinall, Margaret
Addison, Lola Mary
Addison, Malcolm
Addison, Patricia
Adler, Michael Lothar
Advani, Ghansham Chetandas
Aggio, Vittorio And Shirley
Agius, Albert Walter & Phyllis
Agius, Mary
Agnew, Necia K
Agostinelli, C, Cesil Nominees Pty Ltd Super Fund
Ah You, Bradford
Ahearn, J.G. & N. A.
Ahluwalia|Ahluwalia, Kanta|Ajit Kumar, Manyara Pty Ltd
Ahmed, Faizan
Ahmed, Masood & Beryl
Ahmet, David, Kenlake P/L
Ahooja, Vijay & Kathryn Bernadette
Ahsam, Patricia Rosemary Ruth
Aickin, David
Aickin, Enid Adria
Aickin, Gordon Alexander

Whalan, Valerie May
Whale, Raymond Keith
Wham, Evan
Wharton, Chris, Australian Optimal Computer Systems Pty Ltd
Wharton, Richard John
Whatham, Donald George & Fiona Helen
Whatham, Valerie
Whatmough, G E
Whatson, K I & Hd
Wheat, M.E
Wheatley, Gillian Wendy
Wheatley, Gillian Wendy, Mrs Roberta Bowler (Deceased)
Wheatley, Joyce Patricia
Wheatley, Norman G & Joyce P
Wheatley, Robyn
Wheaton, Heather, Wheaton Family Super Fund
Wheaton, Randall Phillip
Wheeler, Ellen
Wheeler, Maria
Wheeler, Peter
Wheeler, Raymond
Wheeler, Richard J
Wheeler, W R, Estate Edith Wheeler
Wheeler, William
Wheen, June Elizabeth
Whelan, Helen
Whelan, John Anthony David
Wherrett, Nancy
Whiffen, Marjorie Lilian
Whilby
Whiles, Peter & Robyn
Whincup, Marjorie
Whipp, Glenn William
Whish, Keith Milroy, Keith Whish Pty Ltd - Employees Super Fund
Whish, Keith Milroy
Whitaker, Simon & Sally
Whitaker, William George
Whitbread, Trevor Wayne
Whitby, Delma Beth
White, Adrian E
White, Alfred Abel & Rita Alice
White, Anne
White, Beverley
White, Brian Edward & Janet Marion
White, Bruce & Beverley
White, Christopher, Brewco Pty Ltd <The Smyth Discretionary A/C>
White, Christopher
White, Craig, Glenroad Holdings Pty Ltd
White, David Edwin
White, David George
White, David Thomas
White, Dennis
White, Doris Mary
White, Dorothy Edmee
White, Elisabeth Anne
White, Elizabeth
White, Elizabeth, Nommack No 266 Pty Ltd
White, Eric Alfred
White, Ethel
White, Frederick & Elaine
White, Garry
White, Geoffrey
White, Geoffrey & Wendy
White, Geoffrey Allan, A/L Flitcroft Super Fund
White, Ian Basil, Bello P/L
White, Jessie Dorothea
White, John
White, John Francis & Margot Rose
White, Keith Stanley
White, Keneth
White, Learion
White, Lesley
White, Leslie & Edith
White, Lindsay P.
White, M, Faratax Pty Ltd
White, Marianne, Marianne White, A/C Nadine & Adrian White
White, Michael Benjamin
White, Norma
White, Pamela Beth
White, Patricia Ann
White, Patricia Fay
White, Paul Anthony
White, Peter
White, Philip
White, Phillip & Gloria
White, Raymond
White, Robert Leslie
White, Roselyn, Gidgeon Pty Ltd
White, Ross
White, Sharon Jenelle
White, Sonya
White, Spensley Kevin
White, Steven
White, Vernon James
White, William And Betty Ann
White, Winifred
Whitehead, Alan David
Whitehead, James M, Nimar Properties Pty Ltd
Whitehead, Joan Eileen
Whitehead, John Barry
Whitehead, Lesley
Whitehead, Marjorie Ellen
Whitehhead, Barbra Edith
Whitehouse, Anita
Whitehouse, Arnold, Davis Welding Hire Service P/L Superannuation Fund
Whitehouse, Arnold, Parl Holdings Pty Ltd
Whitehouse, Arnold, Secprop Pty Ltd
Whitehouse, Arnold Albert & Dorothy Marion, Parl Holdings P/L Superfund
Whitehouse, Richard John
Whitehouse, Sally Jane
Whitelaw, Francis, Tancrag Pty Ltd
Whitelaw, John & Jennifer
Whitelaw, William
Whiteman, H R
Whiteman, Peter Nelson
Whiteman, Scott
Whiteread, Helen Ruth
Whiteside, Joan M
Whitfield, Alan
Whitfield, Edward H And Joan M
Whitfield, Eric Laurence & Merilyn Joan
Whitfield, H J And M J
Whitmore, G.N & A.P.
Whitmore, Louise
Whitney, Alison Standish
Whittaker, Frank & Marjorie
Whittaker, Helen Jane
Whittaker, James Thompson & Ethel Lorna
Whittaker, Sylvia
Whittaker, Yvonne
Whittaker & Evans, Yvonne & Evelyn Joan, Jowitt Superfund A/C
Whitten, Christine Winifred
Whitten, Frank & Thelma Joyce
Whitten, Robert
Whittingham, David
Whittingham, Margaret
Whittle, Bruce
Whittle, Hugh
Whittle, Thomas Claude
Whittle (Dec'd), Jose Georgina
Whittlesea, Paul James
Whitton, Gail Anne
Whitton, Gladys
Whitty, Kay Maree
Whitworth, Elaine
Whyte, Dudley, Executor For The Estate Margaret Mary Martin
Whyte, Gary Keith & Valerie Jean
Whyte, Sandra Mary
Whyte, William Alexander
Wiadrowski, Ian B, Shadow Wood Nominees Pty Ltd
Wick, Peter & Yvonne
Wickens, Peter Charles
Wickham, Joan, Estate Of Edith Maud Cornwall
Wickman, Fredrick
Wickman, Mary
Wicks, Francis & Linda
Wicks, Jean
Wicks, Malcolm Ray, Romal Investments Pty Ltd
Wicks, Mary
Widdowson, Frederick, Estate Of Barbara J Widdowson
Widdowson, Michael John & Jennifer Rosemary
Widdup, Harry
Widdup, John D A
Widmann, Rosemary Kay
Wiebe, Valerie
Wieckhorst, Elsie May
Wiederhold, Max
Wieneke, Joanna Elizabeth
Wien-Smith, Dorothy Joyce
Wigg, A L, Margles Pty Ltd
Wiggins, Joshua Clyde & Vilma Dawn
Wiggins, June
Wiggins, Marjorie Dawn
Wiggins, Neil
Wiggins, Simon
Wight, Coral
Wight, Robin, Robin Roy Wight < Mrs Moira Myrtle Wight>
Wightman, John
Wignall, Ben, B J & G D Wignall Investments Pty Ltd<Bj & Gd Wign
Wilbow, Geoffrey Mark
Wilbow, Gillean Mary Margaret
Wilbraham, Lesley A, Appeal Holdings Pty Ltd
Wilburra Pty Ltd
Wilcher, John Robert, Sneddon & Partners Solicitors
Wilcher, Robert Alan And Evelyn Jean
Wilcox, Brian & Lydia
Wilcox, G G
Wilcox, Jeanette
Wilcox, John Maxwell
Wilcox, Llewellyn
Wilcox, Ln & Lm
Wilcox, Maura
Wilcox, Paul
Wilcox, Ronald Alan & Christine Marie
Wild, Gwendoline Merle
Wild, John
Wild, Lynette, Riverside Piggeries Pty Ltd
Wild, Michael
Wilde, Ann
Wilde, Ken
Wilde, Merran Elizabeth
Wilde, Sharon Joy
Wildes, Robert Allan & Heather Elizabeth
Wilding, Beth Therese
Wilding, Joseph Frederick
Wilding-Davies, Thomas
Wilding-Davies, Toby
Wile, Stephen Jack
Wilheim, Frank
Wilkes, Barry
Wilkie, B J
Wilkie, Kevin Patrick And Kathleen
Wilkie, Nigel
Wilkie, Nigel, Estate Of Kathryn Wilkie
Wilkie, Ronald & Patricia
Wilkin, Lindsay Durham
Wilkins, Maureen Theresa
Wilkins, Rodney Francis
Wilkinson, Johviole Pty Ltd
Wilkinson, Arthur
Wilkinson, Carla
Wilkinson, Cyril Lloyd, Samanda Pty Ltd
Wilkinson, Cyril Lloyd, Sword Nominees Pty Ltd
Wilkinson, Cyril Lloyd
Wilkinson, Cyril Lloyd, Bowra Investments Pty Ltd
Wilkinson, David, Estate Jack Wilkinson
Wilkinson, Elizabeth Rose
Wilkinson, Florence
Wilkinson, Helen Betty
Wilkinson, Janine Marjorie
Wilkinson, Jeffery William
Wilkinson, Kenneth Jefferson
Wilkinson, Kevin William
Wilkinson, Louis
Wilkinson, Patricia Rita
Wilkinson, Paul Howard
Wilkinson, Raymond
Wilkinson, Roberta
Wilkinson, Ron
Wilkinson, Sarah
Wilkinson, Shirley Catherine
Wilkinson, Sylvia
Wilkinson, William
Wilkinson-Beards, Vivian
Wilks, Geoffrey Charles
Wilks, George Walter
Wilks, Helen
Wilks, John George
Wilks, Michael James
Wilks, Paul Arthur
Wilksch, Brian John
Willan, Gail
Willard, Kenneth
Willard, Kenneth & Gweneth
Willaton, Charles & Patricia
Willbourn, John Francis
Willcock, Kenneth
Willcock, Kenneth Edgar
Willcock, Nora Margaret
Willett, John Arthur
William, Pinnuck, Wilani Nominees Pty Ltd
Williams, Anne, B A Williams Pty Ltd
Williams, Anthony, Juanth Pty Ltd
Williams, Arthur James
Williams, Barbara
Williams, Beverley
Williams, Beverley, Estate Of Brian J Williams
Williams, Brian & Pam
Williams, Bruce
Williams, Bruce
Williams, Cheryl Ann
Williams, Cindy Louise
Williams, Clive
Williams, Colin
Williams, Craig Douglas
Williams, David John
Williams, David R
Williams, Derek
Williams, Diane Rosemary
Williams, Donald E
Williams, Doreen May
Williams, Douglas & Florence Margaret
Williams, Elizabeth Anne
Williams, Ellen Dorothy Alice
Williams, Enid June
Williams, Eric F & Rita C
Williams, Frederick George & Linda May
Williams, Gail Eve-Lyn
Williams, Gayle Margaret, Weston Family Trust
Williams, Genifer
Williams, Geoffrey
Williams, Geoffrey Benjamin
Williams, Gloria
Williams, Gordon, Ardax Pty Ltd
Williams, Gordon Joseph
Williams, Gordon Noel
Williams, Graeme Evan, Lotus Bird Sanctuary Pty Ltd
Williams, Graeme Evan
Williams, Gregory Shane
Williams, Gwendoline Mary
Williams, Gwynneth Muriel
Williams, Helen Lindsay
Williams, Howard Kerr
Williams, Ian
Williams, Ian Robert
Williams, Ian Robert
Williams, Isabelle Margaret
Williams, Jannette Zofia
Williams, Jeanette Joy
Williams, Jessie E.
Williams, Jlg & Bt
Williams, Joan Ferguson
Williams, John, J T W (Sales) Pty Limited
Williams, John Francis
Williams, Judith Zillah
Williams, June & Pao Zen
Williams, Kathryn Joy
Williams, Keith
Williams, Leo
Williams, Lesley
Williams, Margaret C
Williams, Margaret Helen
Williams, Margaret Katherine
Williams, Margaret Russell
Williams, Maria
Williams, Martin David
Williams, Mary Elizabeth
Williams, Mary Rose
Williams, Maureen Anne
Williams, Michael
Williams, Monica
Williams, Murray Warman
Williams, Patricia
Williams, Paul
Williams, Paul
Williams, Pauline
Williams, Peter
Williams, Peter Edward
Williams, Peter Lloyd
Williams, Raymond John & Betty May
Williams, Richard Brian & Yvonne Elizabeth
Williams, Rodney Gary
Williams, Ronald H
Williams, Rosemary
Williams, Shane
Williams, Shirley E
Williams, Shirley May
Williams, Stephen
Williams, Stephen & Gayle M.
Williams, Susan
Williams, Susan & Bruce Charles
Williams, Thomas & Heather
Williams, Trevor
Williams, Wendy
Williams, William & Pamela Joy
Williams, William Morgan & Bettini Joan
Williams, William Robert
Williams & Bowkett, Wendy Patricia & Mark Francis
Williams & Hooke, Valerie L & Leonie A
Williams Super Fund, Stephen Williams
Williamson, Denis Paul
Williamson, Douglas Gregor
Williamson, Dulcin Agnes
Williamson, Evan David And Katrina Amy
Williamson, Heather Maree
Williamson, Kenneth Ross
Williamson, Lance & Barbara Elizabeth
Williamson, Mary Paula
Williamson, Merryl Marie
Williamson, Neil Stewart
Williamson, Neville Morton
Williamson, Noel Jean
Williamson, Py
Williamson, Robert Arthur
Williamson, Valerie Margaret
Williamson, Valerie Margaret
Williamson, Vivien Mary
Willing, Carole & Ron, Carol Rae Willing<The Ron Willing Family Trust>
Willing, Richard & Gweneth
Willington, Valerie Lorraine
Willis, Alan
Willis, Annie
Willis, Elaine M
Willis, Elizabeth Anne
Willis, George Mervyn
Willis, Graham James
Willis, Larraine Lee
Willis, Margaret Ann
Willis, Michael Robert
Willis, Neil Andrew
Willis, Peter
Willis, Peter & Beryl Margot
Willis, Peter Stephen & Margaret Kathleen
Willis, Rj & Ma
Willis, Robert Allan & Lusy
Willis, Robert John
Willis, William Patrick
Willliams, Kenneth Ernest, Estate Of The Late Harold Simpson Williams
Willoughby, Aj
Willoughby, Charles & Helen
Willoughby, Ha
Willoughby, Jack Alfred And Leone Mary
Willoughby, Michael A
Willoughby, Ml
Willoughby, Peter & Aileen
Wills, Alan & Jean
Wills, David & Olwen
Wills, Diane
Wills, Gary
Wills, Kay
Wills, Lynette W
Wills, Margaret Agnes Nevin
Willson, Alison Ruth
Willson, Heather Robin
Wilmot, Malcolm, C/- Miss A Saviane
Wilmot, Peter & Bryan
Wilms, Helen Patricia
Wilsdon, Nancye Margret
Wilson, Alan Robert
Wilson, Alexander John, Passim Nominees Pty Ltd
Wilson, Alice M
Wilson, Angela Joy
Wilson, Anne Therese
Wilson, Anne Therese
Wilson, Annie Jean
Wilson, Audrey Alice
Wilson, Barbara Yvonne
Wilson, Bertram John
Wilson, Betty
Wilson, Betty Jean
Wilson, Brian
Wilson, Bruce Darrell And Valerie
Wilson, Carmel June
Wilson, Carol
Wilson, Catherine Harrington
Wilson, Chris And Judith
Wilson, Christopher Robert
Wilson, Claire Ruby
Wilson, D A, Estate Of Ross Neville Wilson
Wilson, David A
Wilson, David John
Wilson, Dianne
Wilson, Donald Murray & Pauline Mavis
Wilson, Douglas Harold
Wilson, Edward & Nancy May
Wilson, Elaine Banting
Wilson, Ellen Ethel
Wilson, Elsie
Wilson, Fae Ilma
Wilson, Fay Isabel
Wilson, Frances
Wilson, G D V
Wilson, Gary And Marion
Wilson, Gary James
Wilson, Geoffrey & Nola
Wilson, Geoffrey Ashton
Wilson, George
Wilson, George & Irena
Wilson, Graeme And Lynette
Wilson, Heather Irene
Wilson, Helen Frances, Ms Julie Ann Cameron Astley & Ms Jennifer Susan Th
Wilson, Jack R
Wilson, James Peter
Wilson, Jill Annette
Wilson, Joan E, F C & J E Wilson Holdings Pty Ltd
Wilson, John Leslie & Ada Emily Wilson
Wilson, John William
Wilson, Joy Patricia
Wilson, Judith Ann
Wilson, Judith Anne
Wilson, Judith Anne
Wilson, Karen
Wilson, Keith Joseph
Wilson, Kevin Edwin & Claudia Maria
Wilson, L.G.
Wilson, Lucille
Wilson, Mabel Constance, Estate Of Albert Bowman Wilson
Wilson, Malcolm
Wilson, Malcolm Alexander
Wilson, Margaret Isabel, M I Wilson Pps|C/- Tower Trust Ltd (Client Ref: 53
Wilson, Maria Dawn
Wilson, Mary Anastasia
Wilson, Matthew William
Wilson, Maureen Joy
Wilson, Michael
Wilson, Michael Geoffrey
Wilson, Michelle Anne
Wilson, Murray George Alexander
Wilson, Neville & Marie
Wilson, Noni Dorothy
Wilson, Olive John
Wilson, Patricia
Wilson, Paul Dean
Wilson, Peter
Wilson, R H & A E
Wilson, Raema Alexandra
Wilson, Raymond
Wilson, Raymond Henry & Maureen Newton
Wilson, Renee Kathleen
Wilson, Richard Ian
Wilson, Richard John
Wilson, Robert
Wilson, Robin Ross & Yvonne
Wilson, Ronald
Wilson, Ronald
Wilson, Roslyn Moira
Wilson, Roy William & Beryl Joan
Wilson, Shirley Anne
Wilson, Suzanne E.
Wilson, Victor & Daphne, Ckm (Nominees) P/L <A/C V M Wilson Super Fund
Wilson, Vivienne Pauline
Wilson, William Dudley, Wilthro Enterprises Pty Ltd
Wilson, William Thomas
Wilson & Nankivell, John W & G L
Wilson-Willis, Christine
Wiltshire, Lenore
Wimborne, R, Estoril Investments P/L
Winbanks, Kevin Richard & Wilma Rose
Windass, Richard
Windeyer, Margaret Moor
Windle, Audrey Mary
Windle, Paul Fairbrother
Windle, Walter Sydney
Windlow, David, Resone Pty Ltd <David Windlow S/F A/C>
Windon, Ross Graham
Windon, Wendy
Window, Peter, Estate The Late Noel Richard Lander
Windsor, Mary Magella
Windsor, Penelope, Estate Of Robert Burns
Winduss, Vernon Roy
Winegardner, Colin & Beverley
Wines, Lisa Jane
Winfield, Joan Eleanor Ann
Winkley, Ernest Bruce And Janice Wendy
Winkley, N J
Winley, Stefan, Claudine Mfg Co Pty Ltd
Winley, Stefan & Kristine Louise
Winnikow, Sylvia
Winsbury, Keith John And Janet
Winstone, Sandra Ann
Winter
Winter, Annemarie
Winter, Barry John
Winter, Bruce Page, Bruce Winter Family Trust
Winter, Coleen Estelle
Winter, Geoffrey Julian
Wippell, Barbara Margaret
Wippell, Francis Wrayth
Wippell, Heather
Wippell, Sybil Horatia
Wirth, John
Wischer, Helen
Wise, Aida
Wise, Brian & Coral
Wise, Brian Lindsay & Ruth Lorraine
Wise, Coral
Wise, Robert, Ra & J Wise Pty Ltd
Wise, Trevor Alan
Wise, Victor
Wise, Victor Colin, Superannuation Fund A/C
Wiseheart, Gertrude Margaret
Wiseman, Abbey-Jean
Wiseman, Anne Helen
Wiseman, David Alexander
Wiseman, Phillip
Wiseman, Sara Nicole
Wishart, Diana Mackenzie
Wishart, Garry Douglas
Wishart, Graeme James
Withall, Kym
Witheford, Helene Joan
Witheridge, John
Withers, Roger W
Withers, Shannon, Meggin And Celia
Withers, Susan Mary
Witkowska, Grazyna M
Witney, Desmond Brian
Witney, Noel William
Witnish, Shane Alan & Lauren Maree
Witt, Grace Elizabeth
Witte, Stephen Edward
Wittig, Jethro, Meljope Pty Ltd
Witton, Elaine
Witton, Fay
Witts, Allan Leslie
Wittwer, Raymond Dennis
Wittwer, Roma Dawn
Woff, Leonore
Woittiez, Merry
Wolfe, Heather
Wolff, Shane Michael
Wolfswinkel, Willem Frederick
Wolgast, N F And L J
Woll, Hans & Carolyn
Wollen, Arthur John & Karol Dawn
Wollschlager, Lucy
Womack, Margot
Wonders, Ivor, Jarele Pty Ltd
Wonders, Ivor
Wong, David
Wong, David Hing Leung
Wong, Dolly
Wong, Edward, Edison International Pty Ltd
Wong, Hok Yew
Wong, Joan
Wong, Kam
Wong, Kwan, Mr & Mrs Ky & S Wong Super A/C
Wong, Kwan Ying
Wong, Lillian Kam Fan
Wong, Michael
Wong, Millee
Wong, Patrick Ki-On
Wong, Peter Wai-Hong And Emmy Kar-Wai
Wong, Shau Nam
Wong, Sin Wai
Wong, Sing Ho
Wong, Stephen, Stephannie Nominees Pty Ltd
Wong, Susan Mary
Wong, Wai Man
Wong, Yet Chee
Wong-Doo, Catherine
Wong-Doo, Nicole, Trust Of Dr Vh Wong-Doo
Woo, Miriam
Woo, Philip
Woo, Raymond
Woo, Stephen
Wood, Anthony James, Estate Mr Raymond George Wood
Wood, Barbara Emma
Wood, Brenton Clifford
Wood, Carol Mary Christina
Wood, David
Wood, Dennise Marie, Estate Of Kevin Frederick Wood
Wood, Donald John
Wood, Dorothy
Wood, Elaine Marie
Wood, Elsie May
Wood, Evie Frances
Wood, Fay Louise
Wood, Ian
Wood, Ian Lewis & Jennifer
Wood, Irene May
Wood, Isabel
Wood, Jeffrey Thomas & Jennifer Clayton
Wood, John Samuel
Wood, Leonard
Wood, Leonard Walter
Wood, Leslie & Lynette
Wood, Lynette
Wood, Margaret Ann
Wood, Margaret L'strange
Wood, Marion
Wood, Maxwell Thomas
Wood, Michael
Wood, Michael Douglas
Wood, Michael Vinal
Wood, Nigel
Wood, Nola
Wood, Robina, Estate Of Christopher Robinson Wood
Wood, Robyn Mavourneen
Wood, Ronald Kevin
Wood, Timothy John & Louise Ellen
Wood, Walter Norman
Woodall, Elsie
Woodall, Lyle Clive
Woodbine, Peter
Woodburn, Donald, Dhw Investments Pty Ltd
Woodbury, Edwin
Woodbury, Gregory Charles
Woodbury, Philip John
Woodcock, Angela
Woodcock, Peter Albert
Woodcroft-Lee, Carlien Patricia
Wooden, Allan Edward
Wooden, Betty Brown
Wooden, Reginald Kenneth & Margaret Gean
Woodforth, James M
Woodforth, Nona Olive
Woodger, Edwin J
Woodhead, Karen Lesley
Woodhead, Patricia
Woodhead, Stephen Maxwell
Woodhill, Mary Lilian
Woodhouse, Gary
Woodhouse, Gary, Lorraine Pastoral Company Superannuation Fund
Woodhouse, Jennifer
Woodhouse, Jocelyn Laira
Woodhouse, Philip
Woodington, Sydney Sargent
Woodington, Thea Catherine
Woodman, Keith Vincent
Woodrow, Elizabeth Lyle
Woodrow, John James
Woods, Alan K.
Woods, Barry William
Woods, Diana
Woods, Frances Lynette
Woods, Judy, Solid Support
Woods, Kenneth John
Woods, Kenneth John And Margaret Eileen
Woods, Pamela, Pamela Woods Atf Alexis Wentworth-Shields
Woods, Patricia
Woods, Peter Robert & Joyce Lorraine
Woods, Robert Charles
Woods, Russell Laurence
Woods, Sheila
Woods, Stephen
Woods, Valerie Ruby
Woods, Vivian
Woodward, Anthony, Zachary Woodward Account
Woodward, Anthony, Woodlea Pty Ltd Superannuation Fund Account
Woodward, Athol Darry
Woodward, Denis Alexander, <A/C Brendan A Woodward>
Woodward, Donald Clem & Allison Rae
Woodward, Gregory John
Woodward, Harold And Hilda
Woodward, Joanne
Woodward, June
Woodward, Lois
Woodward, Lynette Maude, <A/C Clare Alanna Woodward>
Woodward, Mary-Ann, Bralem P/L (Superannuation Fund Account)
Woodward, Nancy
Woolbank, Maxwell B
Woolbank, Robert & Janice
Woolcock, Christine, Estate Of John Matthews Woolcock And Joyce Irene W
Woolcock, Julie Ann
Woolcock, Kenneth
Woolf, Kathleen Ann
Woolf, Kym
Woolford, Kenneth & Lynette
Wooller, Deborah
Woolley, Betty
Woolley, Ian
Woolley, Kenneth Milroy
Woolley, Mark Andrew
Woolnough, Brian John
Woolridge, Malcolm E, Atlantis Superannuation Fund
Woolston, Cecily Joy
Woon, Helen
Wootten, Walter John
Wootton, Cedric Alan
Worboys, William Herbert Ivan
Wordsworth, L D
Worner, Graham & Dawn
Worrall, Francis Charles & Margaret Joyce
Worrall, Judith H, Viatherm Pty Ltd
Worsell, Rita
Worsley, Edward & Jennifer
Worsley, J L
Worth, Gary
Worth, Margaret
Worth, Neil & Pamela
Worth, Victor Colin
Worth, Victor Neil & Coralie Anne
Worthington, Frank Bruce
Worthington, Lenore
Worthy, Joan
Wossough, Bijan
Wotherspoon, Ronald Rolf, Estate Of Ronald Rolf Wotherspoon
Wotton, Roy
Would, Donald
Wraight, Monica M
Wrankmore, Terence I.
Wrennall, Richard & Marie
Wrice, M K
Wright, A.J. & R.H.
Wright, Alan & Merilyn
Wright, Alice Catherin
Wright, Alister Richard
Wright, Allan
Wright, Charlotte Gladys
Wright, Christopher J
Wright, Collingwood
Wright, Dale Malcolm, Studeanne Pty Ltd<Wright Pty Ltd>
Wright, Desley June
Wright, Donald & Nancy
Wright, Donald Earl
Wright, Donald J. & G.J.
Wright, Donna Leigh
Wright, Edward Charles
Wright, Errol, Bresgro Pty Ltd Employees Superannuation Fund
Wright, Fiona Lesley
Wright, Frances
Wright, Gary
Wright, Gavin & Jennifer
Wright, Gilbert Russell
Wright, Gwenda Jean
Wright, Helen
Wright, Ian
Wright, Janice Melva
Wright, Jean Eunice
Wright, John T, Wright Glen Ian Pty. Ltd. Superannuation Fund
Wright, Kingsley And Fay
Wright, L M
Wright, Lesley Joy
Wright, Lesliec. & Norma C.
Wright, Lorna Betty
Wright, Lucinda Gabriel Delpratt
Wright, Marion May
Wright, Matthew James Harold
Wright, Matthew John Lindsay
Wright, Nola
Wright, P.L. & L.J
Wright, Richard
Wright, Richard John, Wright Family Trust
Wright, Stephanie, Estate Of Mr Frederick Lines
Wright, Stephen Ralph
Wright, Sue
Wright, Thomas W. & Esme J.
Wright, Victor
Wright, Wendy
Wright, Wendy
Wright, William Walter
Wright & Pearcy, Janet & Clive
Wright Smith, John, J & E Wright Smith Super Fund
Wrightson, Leonard & Norma Kathleen
Wrigley, Bryan Jackson
Wrigley, Hugh Norman
Wryell, Max
Wu, Ava An Hwa
Wu, Wilfred
Wu, Xuelan
Wunder, Eve
Wunsch & Schaupp, Bertram & Gisela
Wurtz, Craig
Wyand-Brooks, Vicki E
Wyatt, Cheryl Ann
Wyatt, Henry George
Wybrow, Derek Richard
Wyeth, Russell
Wykala Pty Ltd
Wykes, John & Norma
Wyld, Cherie Valmai
Wylie, Amanda Jane
Wylie, Belinda Ann
Wylie, Donald
Wylie, Douglas Richard & Dorothy Ivy
Wylie, Geoffrey David
Wylie, Margaret
Wylie, Sarah Kate
Wylie, Shirlie Ann
Wylie, William Bruce
Wylkight Pty Ltd (Country Builders Superannuation
Wynd, Robert Jack
Wyndham, John & Diana
Wyner, Michael
Wynn, David, Hamini Pty Ltd
Wynn, David, Wynn Investments Pty Limited
Wynn, Geoffrey Kenneth & Joanne, Dataframe Australia Pty Ltd Superannuation Fund
Wynn, Joan M
Wynn, Kenneth & Patricia
Wynn, Lloyd Stanley
Wynne, Elizabeth Karen
Wynne, Leonard John
Wynne, Mervyn Owen
Wynne, Peter & Leanne
Wynter, Kurt F. & Faith V.
Wyse, Colin Douglas
Xiaohong, Guo & Junan Ma, Perpetual Registrars Limited
Xipell, Mary Elizabeth
Xodo, Eugene
Yaffe, Elizabeth, Bannata Pty Ltd
Yalden, Michael John
Yan, Shirley
Yan, Yc And Bj
Yan, Yin Man
Yan, Yinman & Yunfu
Yan, Yun Fu
Yang, Chiew-Phing

Yang, Elaine
Yang, Kang-Ning
Yanitsas, John And Carole
Yanon, Tean
Yao, Henry
Yap, Beng Choon
Yap, Christine
Yap, Chuan Choon
Yardley, Elna May
Yardley, Stanley Clifford
Yardley, Tom & Lynette
Yarrington, Karl George
Yates, C W
Yates, Carolyn
Yates, Debra Lucia
Yates, Helen
Yates, Lindsay & Carolyn
Yates, Ronald
Yates, William Donald
Yates & Stewart, Matthew & Phillipa
Yau, Patrick Yu Kwan & Anna Yuk Ching
Yaxley
Yearsley, David
Yeates, Robert David
Yee, George & Mo Chun
Yee, Lee Man
Yee, Sau Han
Yee, Terese H
Yen, Boon-Swee And Tyng-Yann
Yen, Daphne Siew-Chin
Yendall, Brian
Yeo, Brian, Estate Colin Duncan Yeo
Yeo, Meng Heong
Yeoh, Elaine
Yeoh, Gary Pooi Seng & Kam Kwi, <Hsbr Superannuation Fund No 5>
Yeoh, Oon
Yeoh, Oon Hock
Yeoh, Tai Giok & Guan Hock
Yeow, Edward
Yeung, Kia-Song
Yeung, Kia-Song, <A/C Kiril Mickovska>
Yeung, Paul Kwong Hung & Katherine Shuk Wah Kong
Yeung, Wai Man Vivian
Yeung, Yin Fun
Yeung, Yue Goke
Yew, Terry, Mary & Andrew
Yi, Edward
Yih, John
Yim, Denise
Yim, Ming K
Yip, Gordon T
Yip, Moh-Ying
Yip, Neumann
Yip, Roger S A
Yiu, Yvonne Woon
Yock, Ronald Charles, Yock Family Fund Account
Yock, Ronald Charles
Yong, Choo
Yong, Sherilyn
Yong Gee, Francis Bunny
Yong Gee, Simon Anthony
Yoon, Eddie S C
Yorke, Kyra Joy
Yorke, Paul James
Yorke, William George & Jacqueline Emily
Yorston, Robert Keith
Youatt, J
Youings, Letitia Maud
Youll, Mary
Youn, Rostina
Younan, Paul & Dawn
Young, Andrew Harold & Susan Rosemary
Young, Anthony
Young, Archie Norman
Young, Carol Merle
Young, Charles
Young, Daryl
Young, Denise, Guardian Of Terence John Palmer
Young, Donald George
Young, Dorothy Lynette
Young, Edwin George & Margaret Jean
Young, Evaline Joan
Young, Frank, Young View Estates Pty Ltd
Young, Gary Thomas & Hendrina Petrone
Young, Glynn James & Jill Irene
Young, Helen Maree
Young, Henry & Simone
Young, Ivan
Young, Jabez & Kathleen
Young, James
Young, James
Young, Janee
Young, Janet
Young, Jean Gladys
Young, John
Young, Kathleen Joan
Young, Keith Charles
Young, Kerryn
Young, Malcolm David
Young, Marguerite Carmel
Young, Marilyn Joy
Young, Maureen Louise
Young, Michael Philip
Young, Nancy
Young, Nancye
Young, Peter Alexander
Young, Peter John And Jane Therese
Young, Reg, Beech Pty Ltd
Young, Richard L
Young, Robert
Young, Roy Granville
Young, Roy Granville & Wendy
Young, Stanley William
Young, Stephen
Young, Stuart Ashleigh
Young, Thomas Lindsay And Julie Ann
Young & Lincoln, Wendy & Phillip
Younger, Francis W & Heather B
Younger, Raeburn Keith
Younghusband, John George & Margaret
Youngman, David Charles And Barbara Louise
Youngman, Marie De Montfort
Youngs, Ian, Collins Youngs & Co Pty Atf Collins Youngs & Co S
Younie, John David & Susanne Gaye
Younie, Kay Veronica
Yu, Anne
Yu, Xue Xin
Yule, Gordon
Yule, Ute
Yum, Maureen
Yung, Rita
Yung, Teresa
Yunker, James Robert, Kathy Ann & Eileen Margaret
Yvanoff, Robert & Elizabeth
Zaat, Helen Ruth
Zacka, Valerie Frances
Zador, Deborah Alice
Zador, Michael
Zagami, L J
Zahnleiter, Emily Selina
Zahra, Anthony
Zahra, Lynne
Zaika, Boris
Zakhia, Joseph Peter Sharbel
Zalitis, Valerie
Zambo, Edna Barbara
Zambotti, Emilia
Zambotti, Luigi
Zamja, Ursula
Zammit, Brigitte
Zammit, David James
Zammit, Ian Victor
Zammit, John, C/O John Zammit Superannuation Fund
Zammit, Richard & Vera
Zammit, Rita
Zandle, Mark, Mark Zandle Superannuation Fund
Zanetti, Marino Paul
Zanghi, Ramiro
Zanotto, Enrico & Giuliana
Zanotto, Maria
Zarate, Marivic
Zarb, George Joseph & Evelyn Mary
Zarzavatjian, Papken A
Zecevic, Vic
Zechner, Marilyn & Helmut
Zehetner, Adelaida
Zekan, George
Zekan, Joseph
Zeltins, Andrew
Zeriali, Amalia
Zervos, Angela, Executor Of Estate John Xenophon Zervos
Zervos, Angela
Zervos, Cassandra
Ziebarth, Gerard Neville
Ziebarth, Patricia Mary
Ziebarth, Paul
Ziebell, Paul James
Ziegler, Anna
Ziegler, Barry Max
Ziegler, Daila
Ziegler, Daila, Estate Of Frederick Ziegler
Ziegler, David
Ziegler, John B,
Ziegler, Mary, Estate Of The Late Adek Stein
Ziegler, Walter And Lilly
Ziegler, Zena A
Ziliotto, Eric And Zoe
Ziliotto, Sandra Maree
Zilliotto, Dean
Zimmermann, Erich And Joan
Zito, Guy
Zito, Guy
Zizi, Giuditta
Zografakis, Michael
Zoller, Richard, Fagale Pty Ltd
Zonneveld, Elise
Zoom Zoom Pty Ltd
Zoom Zoom Pty Ltd
Zoppolato, Peter
Zotti, Robyn
Zouroudis, Spiro
Zsigri, Veronica
Zuccala, Anthony
Zuccala, Raymond
Zurfluh, Karl
Zwar, Michael Keith
Zygier, Mendel
Zylstra, Ben, Estate Of Mrs Gunver Zylstra

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SHANE ROBERT KING APPLICANT
AND:	AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD (formerly GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD) (ACN 054 573 401) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 955 OF 1999

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	5 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the applicant:	K Hanscombe SC
Solicitor for the applicant:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Counsel for the first respondent:	I Jackman SC with M Tyson
Solicitor for the first respondent:	Ebsworth & Ebsworth
Amicus Curiae/Contradictor:	A Franklin SC
Date of hearing:	25-27 November 2003
Date of Judgment:	5 December 2003