Maritime Union of Australia and Ors v Patrick Stevedores No.1 Pty Ltd (under administration) and Ors (No.3)
[1998] FCA 695
•16 JUNE 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
EVIDENCE - Client legal privilege - Whether client legal privilege attaches to specific documents produced pursuant to a subpoena - Whether documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice - Whether privilege waived by alleged disclosure of contents of documents - Whether the documents were prepared in furtherance of the commission of an offence or act that renders a person liable to a civil penalty
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
In the matter of Moage Ltd (in liq); John Sheahan v Robert Pitterino (Mansfield J, Federal Court of Australia, 9 March 1998, unreported)
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA and Others v PATRICK STEVEDORES NO.1 PTY Ltd (under administration)
VG 152 of 1998
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA and Others v BUTTERELL and Another
VG 3124 of 1998
JUDGE: NORTH J
PLACE: MELBOURNE
DATE: 16 JUNE 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 152 of 1998
BETWEEN
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST APPLICANTPETER BREUKERS, JAKE HAUB AND KIERAN COYLE
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
PATRICK STEVEDORES NO. 1 PTY LTD (under administration) (ACN 003 621 645)
FIRST RESPONDENT
OTHER RESPONDENTS (as per the Schedule of Parties)
AND
BETWEEN:
VG 3124 of 1998
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA, KIERAN COYLE, PETER BREUKERS AND JAKE HAUB
APPLICANTSAND:
ARTHUR WILLIAM BUTTERELL AND
PETER RAYMOND BROOK
RESPONDENTSJUDGE(S):
NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is adjourned to allow the parties to bring in short minutes of the orders necessary to reflect the conclusions in this decision.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 152 of 1998
BETWEEN
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST APPLICANTPETER BREUKERS, JAKE HAUB AND KIERAN COYLE
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
PATRICK STEVEDORES NO. 1 PTY LTD (under administration) (ACN 003 621 645)
FIRST RESPONDENT
OTHER RESPONDENTS (as per the Schedule of Parties)
AND
BETWEEN:
VG 3124 of 1998
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA, KIERAN COYLE, PETER BREUKERS AND JAKE HAUB
APPLICANTSAND:
ARTHUR WILLIAM BUTTERELL AND
PETER RAYMOND BROOK
RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE:
16 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT NO 3 - BANKING SYNDICATE PRIVILEGE
The question before the Court is whether certain documents produced to the Court on subpoena are subject to client legal privilege.
On 4 and 5 May 1998, the applicants served subpoenas for production of documents on the members of a syndicate of banks comprising Citisecurities Limited, Citibank Limited, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, National Australia Bank Limited, Bank of Western Australia Limited, State Bank of New South Wales, Bankers Trust Australia Limited and Societe Generale Australia Limited (the banking syndicate). Members of the banking syndicate have produced a number of documents in response to the subpoenas. In respect of some of these documents, members of the banking syndicate have claimed client legal privilege.
The applicants have sought access to 16 of the documents for which privilege is claimed by members of the banking syndicate. The applicants do not presently press for access to the remaining documents for which privilege is claimed.
The documents for which members of the banking syndicate claim privilege are identified by descriptions contained in exhibit “A” to an affidavit sworn on 13 May 1998 by Linda Ellen Johnson, the solicitor for the banking syndicate. Using those descriptions, the 16 documents presently in contention are: A2, A3, A9, B1, B3, C9, D5, E2, E3, E7, F1, F4, G1, G9, H1 and H16.
The banking syndicate and the applicants agree that, in determining the claims to privilege, I should apply s 118 of the Evidence Act (Cth), which relevantly provides as follows:
“118. Evidence is not to be adduced if, on objection by a client, the court finds that adducing the evidence would result in disclosure of:
(a)a confidential communication made between the client and a lawyer; or
......
(c)the contents of a confidential document (whether delivered or not) prepared by the client or a lawyer;
for the dominant purpose of the lawyer, or one or more of the lawyers, providing legal advice to the client.”
“Confidential communication” and “confidential document” are defined in s 117(1) as follows:
“‘confidential communication’ means a communication made in such circumstances that, when it was made:
(a)the person who made it; or
(b)the person to whom it was made;
was under an express or implied obligation not to disclose its contents, whether or not the obligation arises under law;
‘confidential document’ means a document prepared in such circumstances that, when it was prepared:
(a) the person who prepared it; or
(b) the person for whom it was prepared;
was under an express or implied obligation not to disclose its contents, whether or not the obligation arises under law”.
The general background to the proceeding is outlined in the judgment granting interlocutory relief delivered on 21 April 1998. The banking syndicate were lenders to members of the Patrick group of companies, the first to seventeenth respondents (Patricks). Prior to the appointment of administrators to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents, on 7 April 1998, Patricks held several meetings with the banking syndicate to advise the banking syndicate on its intentions and to seek modification of the lending arrangements to accommodate the plans of Patricks. The banking syndicate held a number of meetings with its lawyers, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, to seek advice on the situation. The meetings which are relevant to the claim for privilege are:
27 March 1998 - The First Meeting
This was a meeting between representatives of the banking syndicate, the Patricks group of companies, and their respective legal advisers;
31 March 1998 - The Second Meeting
This was a meeting between representatives of the banking syndicate and their legal advisers;
2 April 1998 - The Third Meeting
This was a meeting between the banking syndicate and their legal advisers.
2 April 1998 - The Fourth Meeting
This meeting followed immediately after the Third Meeting. It was a meeting between representatives of the banking syndicate, representatives of the Patricks group and their respective legal advisers.
2 April 1998 - The Fifth Meeting
This meeting followed immediately after the fourth meeting. It was a further discussion between representatives of the banking syndicate and their legal advisers.
7 April 1998 - The Sixth Meeting
This was a meeting between representatives of the banking syndicate and their legal advisers.
The applicants submit that the 16 documents are not confidential communications between the banking syndicate and their legal advisers. Nor do the documents necessarily record such communications. They were not created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice but, so it was submitted, for the dominant purpose of recording the meeting and, hence, they are not privileged.
Mr Douglas QC, who appeared with Mr Collinson, on behalf of the banking syndicate, contended that the documents which disclosed the matters which occurred at the second, third, fifth and sixth meetings, were privileged because the meetings were convened for the lawyers for the banking syndicate to provide legal advice to the banking syndicate. In relation to the first and fourth meetings, Mr Douglas contends that the documents disclose representatives of Patricks attended for the purpose of providing the lawyers for the banking syndicate with information upon which to provide legal advice to the banking syndicate. To disclose the documents recording the first and fourth meetings would result in the disclosure of the advice given by the lawyers for the banking syndicate to their clients. The dominant purpose of each of the meetings was for the lawyers to give legal advice to the banking syndicate and the disclosure of a record of the meeting would result in the disclosure of that advice.
In the case of each document, Ms Johnson has taken instructions from the author and deposed from information and belief as to the subjective purpose of the author in attending a particular meeting or engaging in a particular communication. Mr Douglas accepted that the Court should also take into account the contents of the document in determining the relevant purpose in order to determine the claim for privilege. With these considerations in mind, I now turn to the documents.
Document A2
The claim for privilege is no longer pressed.
Document A3 - Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
This document is described as handwritten note by Melanie Gowlland dated 2 April 1998. The first nine lines of the document record what took place at the third meeting. Another part of the document relates to what occurred at the first meeting. From the description given in the banking syndicate’s outline of argument, I am unable to identify which part of the document relates to the first meeting. No privilege is claimed in relation to the balance of the document.
As to the record of the third meeting, Ms Johnson’s affidavit states that the document is “a record of the confidential communications between Mallesons Stephen Jaques and a banking syndicate which took place at the third .... meeting for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing advice to the banking syndicate.” The contents of the document are consistent with this description. Thus, to disclose the record of the meeting would disclose the confidential communication between the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and its solicitors, Mallesons Stephen Jaques. Consequently, that part of the document dealing with the third meeting is privileged within the requirements of s 118(a) of the Act. This reasoning upholding privilege will be referred to in these reasons as the A3 basis of privilege.
Document A9 - Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
This document is described as handwritten note by Melanie Gowlland dated 7 April 1998. These are notes which Ms Gowlland made of a telephone conversation with Ms Sally Ascroft, a partner at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, “for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice”. The A3 basis of privilege applies to these notes.
Document B1 - Societe Generale Australia Ltd
This is described as handwritten note dated 27 March 1998. The notes were made by Michael Lynch, an employee of Societe Generale Australia Ltd, and are described in Ms Johnson’s affidavit as “confidential notes made by him at the first meeting for the dominant purpose of assisting Societe Generale Ltd to obtain legal advice on the matters discussed at the meeting”. This document has not been separately identified in the bundle and I am therefore unable to determine the claim for privilege in respect of it.
Document B3 - Societe Generale Australia Ltd
This is described as a handwritten note dated 2 April 1998. Ms Johnson’s affidavit states that part of the document is a record of a confidential communication between Mallesons Stephen Jaques and the banking syndicate at the third and fifth meetings “for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate”. The balance of the document is said to contain confidential notes made “for the dominant purpose of assisting Societe Generale Australia Ltd to obtain legal advice on the matters discussed at the fourth meeting”. Those parts of the notes which relate to the third and fifth meetings are privileged on the A3 basis of privilege. The parts of the notes which relate to the fourth meeting show that the representatives of Patricks outlined to the banking syndicate their plans in relation to their business, the potential effects of those plans, and the need for a standstill arrangement with the banking syndicate. There was no confidential communication between the banking syndicate and Mallesons Stephen Jaques as referred to in those notes. Hence, the part of the notes which relate to the fourth meeting are not privileged.
Document C9 - Citibank Ltd
This document has not been identified so I am unable to consider the claim for privilege in relation to it at this stage.
Document D5 - Citisecurities Ltd
This is described as a letter from Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the banking syndicate dated 7 April 1998 and enclosures. Ms Johnson states that document D5 is a confidential document prepared by Mallesons Stephen Jaques and sent to the banking syndicate for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate. Further, there are some notes on the enclosure to the document which were made by Celle Raguine, an officer of Citisecurities Ltd, recording the discussion at the sixth meeting which was held for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate.
The document, apart from the notes on the enclosure, falls within s 118(c) of the Act, being a confidential document prepared by Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the dominant purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to Citisecurities Ltd. The very brief notes on the enclosure record part of the events of the sixth meeting and are privileged on the A3 basis for privilege.
Document E2 - Bank of Western Australia Ltd
This document is described as a memorandum dated 2 April 1998. Ms Johnson states that portion of this document was created by Mr John Main, an employee of the Bank of Western Australia Ltd, and records confidential communications between Mallesons Stephen Jaques and the banking syndicate at the second, third and fifth meetings, for the sole purpose of the Bank of Western Australia Ltd obtaining legal advice. The balance of the document was created for the dominant purpose of using the documents as an aide so that the Bank of Western Australia Ltd could obtain legal advice on the matters discussed at those meetings and the fourth meeting.
The document is a memorandum from the Senior Manager Melbourne to the General Manager Corporate & Interstate Banking and the General Manager Credit & Risk Management. The subject is said to be “the Lang Group is seeking the Bank’s responses to a possible course of action today prior to the board of Lang endorsing and subsequently implementing the course of action”. The document is an internal report concerning the credit risks of a possible course of action to be implemented by the bank’s customer. Disclosure of this document would not reveal any confidential communication between the bank and its lawyers for the dominant purpose of the lawyers providing legal advice to the bank. No privilege attaches to the memorandum.
Document E3 - Bank of Western Australia Ltd
This document is described as a file note dated 2 April 1998. Ms Johnson’s affidavit discloses that this document was also created by Mr Main and part of it is said to record confidential communications between Mallesons Stephen Jaques and the banking syndicate at the second, third and fifth meetings, for the sole purpose of the Bank of Western Australia Ltd obtaining legal advice. The balance of the document was created for the dominant purpose of using it as an aide so the Bank of Western Australia Ltd could obtain legal advice on the matters discussed at those meetings and at the fourth meeting.
Page 1 and most of page 3 of the document records the third and fifth meetings. In the meetings, Mallesons Stephen Jaques provided legal advice to the banking syndicate. The content of the document is consistent with the evidence of Ms Johnson that the communication at the meeting was made by Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the sole purpose of providing legal advice to the banking syndicate. To disclose the document would result in disclosing the communication between the banking syndicate and Mallesons Stephen Jaques. This part of the note is privileged on the A3 basis for privilege.
So far as the note relates to the fourth meeting, it does not disclose any legal advice given by Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the banking syndicate. It discloses a discussion between Patricks and the banking syndicate concerning a proposed course of action to be taken by Patricks and the consequences of that action. Patricks explained these matters to the banking syndicate as the background to a request that the banking syndicate vary the existing lending arrangements to take account of the proposed actions. No privilege attaches to this record of the fourth meeting under s 118(a) of the Act.
Attached to the file note is a letter from Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the banking syndicate. The letter and its attachment conveys legal advice and is privileged under s 118(c).
Document E7 - Bank of Western Australia Ltd
This document is described as an internal facsimile dated 6 April 1998. It comprises a cover sheet for a facsimile transmission of 16 pages from John Main to Peter Jackson and John Michie. The cover sheet is not privileged. The documents which were sent in the transmission include the file note and attachments which comprise document E3. The conclusion relating to that document applies equally to the documents sent by facsimile transmission. Consequently, the documents are privileged save for page 2 of the file note dated 2 April 1998, which deals with the fourth meeting.
Document F1 - Bankers Trust Australia Ltd
This document is described as handwritten notes by Steven Bennett, undated. Ms Johnson states that Steven Bennett was an employee of Bankers Trust Australia Ltd and the document comprises notes taken by him and other officers of Bankers Trust Australia for the sole purpose of assisting Bankers Trust Australia Ltd to obtain legal advice from Mallesons Stephen Jaques on the matters referred to in the document. This document stands in a different position to a record of advice received by a client from a lawyer. It records a discussion between officers of the client concerning the scope of advice to be sought from solicitors. Nevertheless, evidence of the subjects upon which advice was to be sought from a lawyer, as recorded in this document, may result in the disclosure of the advice given by the lawyer to the bank. Consequently, the notes attract privilege.
Document F4 - Bankers Trust Australia Ltd
This document is described as handwritten notes by Duncan McKay dated 2 April 1998. Duncan McKay was an employee of Bankers Trust Australia Ltd and Ms Johnson’s affidavit states that his notes were taken at the third, fourth and fifth meetings for the sole purpose of assisting him to obtain legal advice from Mallesons Stephen Jaques on the matters discussed at those meetings. In accordance with the views I have expressed earlier in these reasons, the parts of this document which relate to the third and fifth meetings are privileged on the A3 basis for privilege, and the part which relates to the fourth meeting is not privileged.
Document G1 - State Bank of New South Wales
This document is described as extract of call minute dated 27 March 1998 (and copy). This document was created by Garry Moodie, an employee of the State Bank of New South Wales. The part of the document for which privilege is claimed, being the last 12 lines on page 4, sets out some subjects on which Mallesons Stephen Jaques was to be asked to advise the State Bank of New South Wales. The claim to privilege under s 118(a) is made out in respect of this part of the document in the same way as the claim was made out in relation to document F1.
Document G9 - State Bank of New South Wales
This document is described as letter from Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the banking syndicate dated 7 April 1998 and enclosures. Ms Johnson states that the documents are confidential documents prepared by Mallesons Stephen Jaques and sent to the banking syndicate for the sole purposes of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate. The documents bear out this description and are therefore privileged under s 118(c). The note on the enclosure, being the agenda for the sixth meeting, was made at the sixth meeting by Mr Moodie and recorded the confidential discussion at that meeting, in which Mallesons Stephen Jaques provided legal advice to the banking syndicate. The note is privileged because it records part of the legal advice provided by Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the banking syndicate.
Document H1 - National Australia Bank Ltd
This document is described as file note dated 31 March 1998 (several copies). Ms Johnson states that this document was created by Roland Cartwright, an employee of National Australia Bank Ltd, to record the discussion at the second meeting, which was held for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate.
The file note records legal advice provided by Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the bank in the second meeting and attaches a letter from Mallesons Stephen Jaques with enclosures containing legal advice to the bank. The file note is privileged on the A3 basis for privilege, and the letter and enclosures are privileged under s 118(c).
Document H16 - National Australia Bank Ltd
This document is described as file note dated 7 April 1998 (and copy). Ms Johnson states that the document was created by Mr Cartwright to record the discussion at the sixth meeting, which was held for the sole purpose of Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice to the banking syndicate. The contents of the document confirm this description. The document is privileged on the A3 basis for privilege.
Loss of privilege - s 122 Waiver
The applicants ask that I consider, by reference to the contents of any documents found to be privileged, whether privilege has been lost by operation of s 122(2) or (4), which relevantly provide:
“(2) Subject to subsection (5), this Division does not prevent the adducing of evidence if a client or party has knowingly and voluntarily disclosed to another person the substance of the evidence and the disclosure was not made:
(a)in the course of making a confidential communication or preparing a confidential document; or
......
(4) Subject to subsection (5), this Division does not prevent the adducing of evidence if the substance of the evidence has been disclosed with the express or implied consent of the client or party to another person other than:
(a)a lawyer acting for the client or party; or
......”.
The loss of privilege in respect of the documents in relation to which I have, to this stage, upheld the claim for privilege may conveniently be dealt with by reference to three different classes. The first class comprises documents which are personal notes of meetings, or parts of such notes, which appear from their contents to be no more than a personal record of proceedings at various meetings. There is no evidence to suggest that these notes were revealed in such a manner as to involve loss of privilege. Documents which fall into this class are the privileged parts of A3, A9, the file note being part of E3, F1, F4, G1 and G9. The second class comprises those documents, or parts of documents, which record the proceedings at the various meetings and where the document itself reveals that its contents were not intended to be revealed. For instance, H1 and H16 are both internal file notes containing details of privileged meetings and each document bears the heading “confidential - not for circulation”. The face of the document in this second class demonstrates that s 122(2) or (4) does not apply. The third class of document comprises letters and documents of advice from Mallesons Stephen Jaques which are headed “private and confidential”. Again, the contents of the documents reveal that s 122(2) and (4) does not apply. The documents in this class are parts of D5, E3, E7 and G9.
Loss of privilege - s 125 Fraud
The applicants also asked the Court to consider whether any documents found otherwise to attract privilege could be disclosed to them by operation of s 125 and, in particular, directed the Court’s attention to the recent decision in In the matter of Moage Ltd (in liq); John Sheahan v Robert Pitterino (Mansfield J, Federal Court of Australia, 9 March 1998, unreported). Relevantly, that section provides:
“125. (1) This Division does not prevent the adducing of evidence of:
(a)a communication made or the contents of a document prepared by a client or lawyer (or both), or a party who is not represented in the proceeding by a lawyer, in furtherance of the commission of .... an offence or the commission of an act that renders a person liable to a civil penalty; or
......
(2) For the purposes of this section, if the commission of the .... offence or act, .... is a fact in issue and there are reasonable grounds for finding that:
(a)the .... offence or act ...., was committed; and
(b)a communication was made or document prepared in furtherance of the commission of the .... offence or act ....;
the court may find that the communication was so made or the document so prepared.
The documents which have been held to attract privilege were prepared by members of the banking syndicate and their lawyers. Mr Douglas contended that s 125(1)(a) did not apply to these documents because neither the banking syndicate nor Mallesons Stephen Jaques are alleged to have committed an offence or an act that renders them liable to a civil penalty. I agree with this argument. Further, the privileged documents do not disclose any communication by others in furtherance of the commission of an offence or an act that renders a person liable to a civil penalty.
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions flow from these reasons:
Client legal privilege has been established by particular members of the banking syndicate over the whole of the following documents: A9, D5, F1, G9, H1, H16.
Client legal privilege has been established by particular members of the banking syndicate over the parts of the following documents which relate to the third and fifth meetings: B3, E3, E7, F4.
Client legal privilege has been established by the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd over that part of document A3 which relates to the third meeting.
Client legal privilege has been established by the State Bank of New South Wales over that part of document G1 for which the claim was made.
Client legal privilege has not been established by any members of the banking syndicate over those parts of the following documents which relate to the fourth meeting: B3, E3, E7, F4.
No ruling concerning client legal privilege has been made on that part of document A3 which is said to relate to the first meeting, nor in relation to the whole of documents B1 and C1 because the relevant part, or the document itself, has not been identified to allow consideration of the claim.
Mr Middleton QC, who appeared on behalf of the fifth-seventeenth respondents sought the opportunity to consider whether his clients would make a claim for privilege in the event that the Court held that members of the banking syndicate did not have privilege in respect of any of the documents in contention in this application. I will therefore give the fifth-seventeenth respondents an opportunity to consider whether to claim privilege in respect of the parts of the documents referred to in paragraph 5 of the conclusions, namely, B3, E3, E7 and F4, before pronouncing orders in this application. I will adjourn the application to allow the parties to bring in short minutes of the orders necessary to reflect the conclusions in these reasons.
I certify that this and the preceding twelve (12) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North
Associate:
Dated: 16 June 1998
APPEARANCES - No VG 152 of 1998:
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J W K Burnside QC with Mr H Borenstein, Mr M Bromberg and Mr M Gronow Solicitors for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn & Co Counsel for 1st-4th Respondents: Mr P B Murdoch QC with Mr J Elliott Solicitors for 1st-4th Respondents: Phillips Fox
Counsel for the 5th-17th Respondents: Mr J E Middleton QC with Mr M McDonald
Solicitors for 5th-17th Respondents:
Freehill Hollingdale & Page Counsel for 18th Respondent: Mr G Harris
Solicitors for 18th Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Solicitors for 19th Respondent: Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks
Counsel for 20th Respondent:
Mr G Harris Solicitors for 20th Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for 21st-27th Respondents: Mr N Young QC with Ms P Tate
Solicitors for 21st-27th Respondents:
Minter Ellison Counsel for 28th & 29th Respondents: Mr G T Pagone QC with Mr N Lucarelli and Mr D Chan
Solicitors for 28th & 29th Respondents:
Dunhill Madden Butler Counsel for the banking syndicate: Mr F Douglas QC with Mr P Collinson
Solicitors for banking syndicate: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
APPEARANCES - No VG 3124 of 1998:
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J W K Burnside QC with Mr H Borenstein, Mr M Bromberg and Mr M Gronow Solicitors for the Applicants: Maurice Blackburn & Co Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P B Murdoch QC with Mr J Elliott Solicitors for the Respondents: Phillips Fox
Dates of Hearing: 6, 13, 19 and 27 May 1998
Dates of Applicants’ submissions: 19 May, 11 June 1998
Date of banking syndicate’s submissions:
20 May 1998 Date of Judgment: 16 June 1998
0
0
0